Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201881 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#187661 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for clarifying, they are not scapegoats or whipping boys here as we all know, they are funding the campaigns opposed to equal rights, and they are the ones carrying signs and putting placards on their lawns.
Thank you for clarifying that is not what I am doing
I have not said anything about "white guilt" I said slaves, I didn’t say anything about color. You have a problem with white guilt? Ok... I don’t.
Yes we had slaves in this country, yes other countries had slaves, yes slaves have been of a variety of races in different times and places.
It is a good example of.... Just because something was historically true... does not make it a good thing.
I don’t want to go back to slavery because it used to be common in many cultures
I don’t want to go back to burring people at the stake because they believed in this religion or that religion
I don’t want to go back to the time when Alcohol was illegal in the US
I don’t want to go back to the time when Women were not allowed the vote
and I don’t want to go back to the time when marriage was not allowed to same sex couples as it is today, recognized in 12 states ( and one district ) and performed in 10 states and that number is growing every year.
Just because something used to be true, does not make it a good thing.
which is why I give no credit at all to the Historically or Traditional arguments.
Too funny!

How about when a good cigar was a smoke?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187662 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for clarifying, they are not scapegoats or whipping boys here as we all know, they are funding the campaigns opposed to equal rights, and they are the ones carrying signs and putting placards on their lawns.
Thank you for clarifying that is not what I am doing
I have not said anything about "white guilt" I said slaves, I didn’t say anything about color. You have a problem with white guilt? Ok... I don’t.
Yes we had slaves in this country, yes other countries had slaves, yes slaves have been of a variety of races in different times and places.
It is a good example of.... Just because something was historically true... does not make it a good thing.
I don’t want to go back to slavery because it used to be common in many cultures
I don’t want to go back to burring people at the stake because they believed in this religion or that religion
I don’t want to go back to the time when Alcohol was illegal in the US
I don’t want to go back to the time when Women were not allowed the vote
and I don’t want to go back to the time when marriage was not allowed to same sex couples as it is today, recognized in 12 states ( and one district ) and performed in 10 states and that number is growing every year.
Just because something used to be true, does not make it a good thing.
which is why I give no credit at all to the Historically or Traditional arguments.
I would have to say I admired Mary when she was much younger, but was a terrible queen.

Elizabeth was not beyond reproach either, however was a MUCN better queen.

One of my favorite quotes about her was from Raleigh ( if I recall, this is out of memory so not sure ), "her majesty did everything in halves"

LOL, she frustrated a lot of people, but still Elizabeth was perhaps my favorite English monarch, there are a couple others I admire. Henry the 2nd for example, although I don’t have a favorable opinion of any of his sons. Particularly not the 2nd eldest Richard or the youngest John, both disasters.

Was it Churchill that mentioned we owe more to John's vices than the best behavior of any other king.( or something like that )…( chuckle )
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#187663 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope only responding to them, but we all remember that you are incapable of seeing past posts so .. shrug ... you choose to remain ignorant.
Your choice
Thanks for taking the time to share those thoughts. But it proves nothing. Again, you fail.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187664 Apr 8, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So once again we are back to the marriage is all about sex? Which is it you keep going round and round. Is marriage about some religious sanctity or is it about sex. Stop flip flopping you sound like a politician.
Now marriage isn't about sex?

Anytime the issue starts exposing the fallacy of your position, all of a sudden, that's not what marriage is about.

It's not about children because ss couples are barren.
It's not about sex because gays only have a harmful imitation.
It's not about gender because ss couples are only ever a duplicated half.

Furthermore, I don't know a single heterosexual couple who got married so they could have the benefits the government provides.

Man up and get your own relationship, and quite your gay twirl whining!

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187665 Apr 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does "marriage" exist in the first place? Why did it develop throughout time and place as virtually an exclusive relationship of either one man/husband one wife, or one man many wives?
Just ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, please. Thank you.
He is incapable. As soon as you get specific, he does a gay twirl dance to another spot, and wants you to answer HIS question.

He is clearly ignorant and immature.

Good luck.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187666 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for taking the time to share those thoughts. But it proves nothing. Again, you fail.
No same sex marriage is succeeding you are failing, even your party’s idiot spokesman/entertainer has conceded the point.

What I think should happen, is happening, that is not failing
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187667 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny!
How about when a good cigar was a smoke?
Well I don’t want to go back to that time, but I would like one of those brought to this time :)

( I don’t smoke them very often, but have on rare occasions )

I don’t like looking back with rose colored glasses as too many do, I don’t pine for the past.

"The good ole days weren’t always good, and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#187668 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No same sex marriage is succeeding you are failing, even your party’s idiot spokesman/entertainer has conceded the point.
What I think should happen, is happening, that is not failing
Yes. Same sex marriage is succeeding, but you are failing.

One could say same sex marriage is succeeding despite your best efforts!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#187669 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I don’t want to go back to that time, but I would like one of those brought to this time :)
( I don’t smoke them very often, but have on rare occasions )
I don’t like looking back with rose colored glasses as too many do, I don’t pine for the past.
"The good ole days weren’t always good, and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"
Just keep your smoke away from me.

And shuddup. Don't try and get cute with me you corny jackass!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#187670 Apr 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Now marriage isn't about sex?
Anytime the issue starts exposing the fallacy of your position, all of a sudden, that's not what marriage is about.
It's not about children because ss couples are barren.
It's not about sex because gays only have a harmful imitation.
It's not about gender because ss couples are only ever a duplicated half.
Furthermore, I don't know a single heterosexual couple who got married so they could have the benefits the government provides.
Man up and get your own relationship, and quite your gay twirl whining!
Smile.
so, if marriage IS about sex....then everytime we see a married couple, we're supposed to visualize them having sex? is that it? is that what you do?
or, if marriage is about sex, then perhaps is a public declaration of one's sexuality - what one prefers.

i don't know about you, but my relationship with my partner / spouse isn't all about sex. there's far more to our relationship than a physical act can express.

if sex is all i wanted i wouldn't be in stable, long term and monogomous relationship.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187671 Apr 8, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
so, if marriage IS about sex....then everytime we see a married couple, we're supposed to visualize them having sex? is that it? is that what you do?
or, if marriage is about sex, then perhaps is a public declaration of one's sexuality - what one prefers.
i don't know about you, but my relationship with my partner / spouse isn't all about sex. there's far more to our relationship than a physical act can express.
if sex is all i wanted i wouldn't be in stable, long term and monogomous relationship.
To them, marriage is all about sex

It sure isn’t to me... she means a lot more to me than that.

The more I think about it their marriages are a lot more fragile if sex is all it is about for them.

sad
Anonymous

Manassas, VA

#187672 Apr 8, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>you won't catch very many smart people there either.. stupid bigot
what do you know about wisdom. You are the least intelligent person, performing the least intelligent job, you are a silly sk double A nk b!atch!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#187675 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
To them, marriage is all about sex
It sure isn’t to me... she means a lot more to me than that.
The more I think about it their marriages are a lot more fragile if sex is all it is about for them.
sad
Why do you always try to make arguments that just aren't there? No one said marriage is all about sex. You are dishonest.
Competition

San Dimas, CA

#187676 Apr 8, 2013
It also comes weeks after Governor Rick Perry reportedly sent letters to gun companies, encouraging them to move to Texas.

Perry sent a message on Twitter to Colorado company Magpul as recently as March 21, 2013 saying “Come on Down to Texas.”

The Governor’s office did not confirm Friday if it had sent a recruitment letter to Colt Competition.
yea sure

AOL

#187677 Apr 8, 2013
The case of a same-sex Connecticut couple accused of repeatedly raping and abusing two of their nine adopted boys is headed for trial.

Married couple George Harasz and Douglas Wirth of Glastonbury were supposed to be sentenced Friday in Hartford Superior Court under a plea deal, but instead withdrew from their agreement with prosecutors. The men had already pleaded no contest in January to one felony count each of risk of injury to a minor — a reduction from even more serious charges related to sexual assault.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-con...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187679 Apr 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless I'm mistaken, the argument most often thrown around here is that heterosexual couples should have access to the benefits and protections of marriage PRIMARILY because they may have children.
That is correct. What other reason would there be to privelege marriage, or have it at all?

Its opposite sex couples, not heterosexual. An OSC could be of mixed orientation.
The last part of my post was an attempt to show that there are a significant number of same-gender couples who have children.
Who are most likely the products if one or both partners previous OS marriage or relationship. If it was the former they had the protections of marriage.
Shouldn't these be afforded the same protections and benefits under the law as opposite-gender couples who are married?
By what reasoning?
If you don't want to include children in the equation, then the fact that two, consenting, unrelated, adults who wish to partner their lives under the eyes of the government by way of marriage, should be a sufficient argument for same-gender marriage.
Hmmmmmm.....unrelated? First cousins can marry in several states. Why should it be limited to two consenting adults who "wish to partner thier lives under the eyes of government...."?
Don't try to throw in the ringer of plural marriage and incestuous marriages. They have already been found to be unlawful.
Opposite sex incest not same sex....is illegal. The SSM version has never been court tested.

[QUOTE[
Same-gender marriage HAS NOTHING TO DO with incest or bigamy.
We are ONLY talking about same-gender, unrelated, consenting, adult couples.[/QUOTE]

It's all part of the "how is marriage defined" discussion.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#187680 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So that's it? Too bad for them but polygamy "has been found to be unlawful."?
Not so fast slick! That was the same thing that was said about same sex marriage just a few short years ago. It wasn't a valid reason to deny SSM, it's not a valid reason to deny poly marriage.
Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.
That's not my fight...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#187681 Apr 8, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>True that, how are the twins?
Saggy.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187682 Apr 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll just point out that the Supreme Court Justices between 1888 and 1966 meant that marriages were between members of the same race. In 1967, they agreed that legally married couples had to be of the same race.
Now, according to you logic, the "Loving" decision in 1967 (i.e. those who said marriage could only involve same race couples) should have continued to hold that marriages can only be between members of the same race. But the Justices "redefined" marriage at that time. They expanded it to include "different race couples".
We believe that the Justices will expand its definition of marriage again by adding same-gender couples.
This definition expansion has already happened in at least three recent federal court cases and the definition has been expanded in 9 states by legislative means.
"Expand"???

You remove children from marriage,
You duplicate half of normal, natural sex,
You delete a gender,
And you call that an 'expanded' definition?

More of your gay twirl VV...

Snicker.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#187683 Apr 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not my fight...
Same sex marriage is not Mr Hudson's fight.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lawyers who challenged Kansas gay marriage ban ... 37 min david traversa 1
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 42 min Rosa_Winkel 18,469
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr EdmondWA 40,429
IS JaDE going to post twoday? 3 hr Zipper 1
News Oscar Wilde's House, Five Other Sites Recognize... 3 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 3
Dedicate this song to NE JADE 3 hr Kinky Boi 3
News LGBTQ festival canceled in Haiti amid threats, ... 3 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 3
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 6 hr June VanDerMark 11,750
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 16 hr Left of centre 68,993
More from around the web