Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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

Union City, CA

#188821 Apr 16, 2013
Warning! Ticks have been spotted on this thread. Please practice tick safety!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188822 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i haven't seen it.
think he'll be able to put up a copy of even one correct post he's made? i'd put up a few bucks against...
I haven't seen one "correct post" from you tick guy.

What's a "correct post" anyway? One against marriage equality?
FullTilt

Covina, CA

#188823 Apr 16, 2013
Full Tilt, sounds more like the methods used to run the city of Glendora, California ever since Chris Jeffers and his hoodlum friends took over.

But back to the good news, another CROOK has been exposed living and running a illegal enterprise in Glendora, California.

Enterprise is the same word used by Glendora's local government officials? Wonder if long time resident and fugitive Raymond Bitar helped frame the financial RICO business plan?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#188825 Apr 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
He had no legitimate basis to rule otherwise regarding gays using the Olympic name. That was proven by the SCOTUS decision.
Please tell me where I have lied or distorted any of the core issues. Even if it were true, it does not excuse the behavior for anyone. Again, why is that necessary for any legitimate cause.
History shows that often decisions violate common sense and just decisions. Nothing changes the fact that ss couples do not equate to marriage at any level. Even a SCOTUS decision cannot change that.
Smile.
he didn't make a ruling since he was an attorney in the case. try doing a little research about the guy before you make a statement.

you distort in virtually every posting you make. when you treat someone poorly or with a snide comment, as you do here regularly, expect the same in return. you get what you give. i learned that early in life - and my kids already have done so as well (the youngest being in elementary school).

you comment "Nothing changes the fact that ss couples do not equate to marriage at any level." is merely your opinion. you're entitled to it. however, it does not drive the law nor does it drive what the judges have found and will further support in SCOTUS' findings. most likely, i suspect you'll continue to hold that opinion for as long as you live. fine. i get that. but understand that your opinion won't influence any same sex couple away from getting married if that's what they want to do and can. it'll just be you filled with those negative feelings and the repercussions thereof. everyone else will go on with their lives.

good luck.
Cat Purrs

London, UK

#188826 Apr 16, 2013
R1 works for Topix
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188827 Apr 16, 2013
Cat Purrs wrote:
R1 works for Topix
Don't tell Bill or Jizzy! It will break their hearts. And send them into a tail spin of angst.
Medium Tex

United States

#188828 Apr 16, 2013
Cat Purrs wrote:
R1 works for Topix
Yup, and he got the registered Cat Purrs account deleted.

WOO HOO!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188829 Apr 16, 2013
Medium Tex wrote:
<quoted text>Yup, and he got the registered Cat Purrs account deleted.
WOO HOO!!!
Thanks R1!

Please banish that silly jackass "just the facts"!

And give Big D many bad judge-its, then banish his dopey ass too!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#188830 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen one "correct post" from you tick guy.
What's a "correct post" anyway? One against marriage equality?
one that uses a rational reason for not having SSm legal in the US. you have not put up even one of those yet.

why?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#188831 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it your position that denying equal protection is OK if granting it would be too complicated?
it would show that it is not a logical conclusion that legalizing SSm would mean we have to legalize polygamous marriage.

logic is fun!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188832 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>one that uses a rational reason for not having SSm legal in the US. you have not put up even one of those yet.
why?
Because I support same sex marriage. Duh.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188833 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure Big D, you would vote for poly despite the fact that you ridicule it with silly space alien and marry your goat schtick every chance you get.
We believe you.
I am not ridiculing poly, I am ridiculing you and your stupid arguments against same sex marriage trying ( and failing ) using things you are not actually even personally interested in.

Not laughing at Poly... laughing at you
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188834 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it would show that it is not a logical conclusion that legalizing SSm would mean we have to legalize polygamous marriage.
logic is fun!
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Logic is brutal!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188835 Apr 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not ridiculing poly, I am ridiculing you and your stupid arguments against same sex marriage trying ( and failing ) using things you are not actually even personally interested in.
Not laughing at Poly... laughing at you
Sure Big D, sure.

P.S. great argument!(Not.)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188836 Apr 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not ridiculing poly, I am ridiculing you and your stupid arguments against same sex marriage trying ( and failing ) using things you are not actually even personally interested in.
Not laughing at Poly... laughing at you
Ha ha. so funny.

I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188837 Apr 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>one that uses a rational reason for not having SSm legal in the US. you have not put up even one of those yet.
why?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188838 Apr 16, 2013
So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it.

Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.” The Reynolds decision upheld the criminal conviction of a man accused of taking a second wife in the belief that he had a religious duty to practice polygamy, a duty he would violate at risk of damnation. The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres.

Nice!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#188839 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it.
Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.” The Reynolds decision upheld the criminal conviction of a man accused of taking a second wife in the belief that he had a religious duty to practice polygamy, a duty he would violate at risk of damnation. The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres.
Nice!
it is a silly religious cult tradition, and we are abetter society than making our laws based on stone-age cults and myths.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#188840 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Logic is brutal!
heterosexual marraige is in now way essential to social stability, as proven by the countries that have had it for a while and now have a higher standard of living, healthier, happier citizens and better educated kids.

facts are fun!!

your argument was proven wrong before you were told to parrot it...so sad.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188841 Apr 16, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha. so funny.
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Yes we all know the slippery slope arguments against same sex marriage, we have heard them for years.

but some of us are less afraid of that slippery slope than you are. Because the word "marriage" does not belong to a belief system. We will take the issues, one at a time.

This ones time has come, same sex marriage.

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
anyone into kinky taboo fantasy? Thu tabuplay 3
News Palo Alto: Committee balks at restricting smoki... May 14 Ban Tobacco 2
News Surenos gang member gets new trial date (Aug '08) May 4 microadsl 284
You can win an awesome new GenZe Electric Scoot... (Sep '14) May 1 dfd 2
News Council approves tentative minimum-wage plan Apr 26 Hmm 2
Anyone know a good auto glass repair shop aroun... (Oct '06) Apr '15 Angela K 22
Considering moving from Pennsylvania to Palo Al... Apr '15 Mennitti 1
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]