Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201808 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.

Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190267 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays don't force straight people to desecrate families by having 40,000,000 abortions each year.
Gays don't force straight people to spend more on a wedding ceremony, very often going into debt, than they do on a good, midsize sedan.
Gays don't force straight people to divorce at a rate unseen in human history.
You guys seem to think we're the cause of your marriage and family woes.
Go look in the mirror, you yutz! You're your own worst enemy!
Back to quoting non-relevant statistics again? And you wish to be seen as equals, when you use these stats, that prove how unequal you are.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190268 Apr 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I am Jizzy's special project.
He wants to be you...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190269 Apr 27, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you say such a thing? Itís not the least bit funny.
Funny, no. But likely? Yes.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190270 Apr 27, 2013
An observer wrote:
Huge misguding and propaganda goes around.
Marriage institute is not a personal preference and it is not about the rights or love.
It is a privilege establish by the society to the women, let her comfortable to have a child and be financially protected if man decide to live her after having sex with her.
If the married couple have love and live together they don't need a goverment to secure that living.
That institution made to share responsibility for the result of sex relationship which could end up with birth of child.
In many cultures marriage without children is annulled or could be annulled by that reason. Christian based culture more generos and not making the birth a contegency on the protection guaranties to the women.
If people want to have a protection on contract they need to write one and enforce it under regular law regardless to the fact that they have sexull intercourse or not.
But the real motive is a goverment benefits to the marriage institute.
The vote result shows that general public has no interest in sponsoring tax breaks for inheritance of individual who could not produce children. That tax break was design to protect children and women who could earn money because she was carring children.
Why are friends passing property to each other must be treated differently if they are f... or not? We all love friends, parents, siblings , children without sexual relationship and we want them the same privileges in the tax as well unfortunately we can't afford it now.(or may be we should vote on it?)
You see the question do we want to give tax brakes to rich homosectual or not, is the question for the majority and have nothing to do with human rights.
Unfortunaly the have huge money and good lobby to fix result of people vote.
It's nothing more, than a dash for the cash. "Gimme, gimme, gimme", nothing more.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190271 Apr 27, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Newsflash!
We live in US of A, procreation isn't a requirement for marriage. Ergo the rest of your comment regarding financial benefits for women with children is a bit irrelevant in the matter of the question of validating same sex marriage in the US.
The real motive for most couples in the US, apparently, is a pronouncement of love which is recognised in marriage. The legal ramifications of the contract are icing on the cake.
Not at all, sir. Nothing of the sort. It is about the "[enumerated] rights" that are to be had. If it was about "love", there'd be no need for any legislation, at all. they'd already have it. It's the icing on the cake that it is the REAL target, the $$. Children were the original reason for coupling and mating, and all the rest. Normal, natural family.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190272 Apr 27, 2013
Fundamentalist wrote:
New revelation!!!
I think the gay hype is the alien invasion the world is talking about.... The whole idea around homosexuality reality is alien even to their DNA....
The transformation the human being must go through to become gay is alien..... They take up all levels of society demanding rights that is ALIEN....
Ya I can see the invasion and yes the Aliens are here....
Well my Alien friends your fight for rights is warping society to an alienated mind-set as never before, it is foreign to the norm that society should be building values on. This alien invasion is positioned in all levels of society influenced from right on top of world influence. Well you can draw in the Bible as a consion, but the fight all across the planet for an alien reasoning is big. Yes, the aliens are calling victim as far as they go....Victims of what? Society not wanting this invasion, I know the weed with the good seed will mature until the weed can be removed, plucked out from the human heart.
Outstanding post.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190273 Apr 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no... more churches today wish to be able to preform same sex marriages than 5 years ago.
But it hasnít been fast enough
Your problem is that you are selling ignorance and hate, and that just does not sell as well as it used to
You have attempted in the last 50 years to shore up your numbers by aligning with a political party, but that has also backfired
Yes, the infiltration and subversion effort is far-reaching.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190274 Apr 27, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not try being honest? Your objection to same sex marriage is based upon your religion.
He IS being honest. You can't stand it. You should try to be honest, and admit that it is all about the money. Greedy little swine.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190275 Apr 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Paranoia....... very sad.
It couldn't POSSIBLY be that you're a wing-nut, now could it?
Yeah right. You're very sad.

If I type f*** as you routinely type it, my post will be deleted. I have tried it several times.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190276 Apr 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
The part where you think we should be denied marriage is where your opinion comes in.
Fact: there is no reason to deny SS marriage the same legal status as one penis/ one vagina marriages.
Fact: There is no compelling reason for us to fund SSM.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190277 Apr 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
The part where you think we should be denied marriage is where your opinion comes in.
Fact: there is no reason to deny SS marriage the same legal status as one penis/ one vagina marriages.
Fact: There is no parity in what you seek.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190278 Apr 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
The part where you think we should be denied marriage is where your opinion comes in.
Fact: there is no reason to deny SS marriage the same legal status as one penis/ one vagina marriages.
Fact: SSM is a rip-off.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190279 Apr 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is a dead argument, even the Supreme Court joked about it.
Should they deny anyone over 55 a marriage license, how about Vets that lost the use of the lower half of their bodies, should they be denied marriage licenses?
There is no law, anywhere, that will deny a couple a marriage license because they do not intend or cannot have children.
Procreation is a dead argument with respect to same sex marriage.
They hang onto that, because they donít have anything else to cling too, like rats running to the last dry spot on a sinking ship.
You, also, hang onto it, as if it solely validates your side, which it does not. Far from it.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190280 Apr 27, 2013
An observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Goverment could not and should not regulate the love between people - it is unconstitutional, it is private mater between individuals and nobody have right to dictate that relationship. I think we are on the same page here?
The marriage as goverment protected institution is not a registry of people in love, it is goverment enforced contract to protect procreation and set of tax breaks with same intention.
The reason why general public invest in procreation, because the future of the nation depends on it. The today children will pay tax tomorrow and cover the cost of these tax brakes
By the way, check out the report from SSA - we are at the real danger that in 50 years for every working person it would be 4 not working senior and two of them with Alzheimer's. Although US so far has a good chance to avoid it all Europe certainly goes to that future.
No, we are spiralling down the drain, and the SSM crowd is bum-rushing the gates, getting the last scraps/benefits of a dying country. As they contribute to our demise...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190281 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, then let's take back the Fourteenth Amendment and let people own one another. Let's allow slavery to flourish in the country again. Let's allow segregation of schools. Let's allow discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.
Such pesky government interference...
Look, our country EVOLVES. It doesn't stay stagnant. Decisions are made and processes are created in a manner that you may not agree with. But you are powerless to do anything about them.
The LGBT Community is aware of the processes necessary to get the rights and protections of marriage that we feel, as citizens, we deserve.
We will work within those systems, whether you believe they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals.
Rightly or wrongly, these are the processes that we have access to at this point in the game.
We like to refer to it as our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
Silly quiff, the 14th is about marriage, not slavery. Can't you read? And, YOU may feel that you deserve the same rights as a legitimate couple does, but, WE do not. Get your avaricious hands out of the coffers.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190282 Apr 27, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Other than religious beliefs what do they have to hang thier hats on?
Lack of legitimacy, lack of societal benefit, shall I go on?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190283 Apr 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the difference between the disgruntled and the rest of us, they only look back with longing to earlier times.
When abortions were done by criminalís with coat hangers
When Homosexuals were persecuted legally
When minorities did not have equal rights or status
They long for those days, while the rest of us are looking forward to a brighter future.
So, now you are a mind reader? What is my favorite color? What kind of music do I like? Please, continue to describe me, you are amazingly dizzying...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190284 Apr 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>The funny part is they think they're hiding their true feelings.
It's you who has the hidden agendas. Tell us the truth. It's all about the Benjamins. the money. The financial gain. Not about "love" at all, is it? Want some love? Curl up with someone, and get some. that's all you need to start with, not governmental protection of your fragile status.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190285 Apr 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not very good at that... are they?
So, when I post my disapproval, I am attempting to hide my true feelings? Great insight there, Super-Frylock.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190286 Apr 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>It's like hiding behind glass with them. Their only frame of reference is their own stupid selves. A lack of education is a VERY obvious thing to people who have one. They have no idea that they are textbook examples of calumny.
Reading the dictionary, looking for new words? Calumny? nothing false about what we say. It is all there, hiding in the obvious.
Marriage rights were established to protect normal, natural families, not to fund your deviance.

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? 10 hr tabuplay 3
News Billionaire Icahn Says Apple Is One of Best Buy... Wed Andarz Abedini 4
Earn as much as you can...no investments needed... May 18 angelsxy0010 1
Who Is Matthew Christopher? May 17 FredandBarneys 1
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
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]