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 8,304)

Showing posts 166,061 - 166,080 of200,322
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190203
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
"Same-Sex Couple Fights for Right to Divorce in Maryland" http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Same-...
"Texas, USA: Dallas Gay Couple Still Seeking Divorce After Four Years"
http://purpleunions.com/blog/2013/01/texas-us...
"Rhode Island Judge Faces Legal Quandary as Gay Couple Seeks Divorce"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231473,00...
There are more, but why bother. But one must enjoy the irony. Here we have a group of people screaming that they must be granted the acknowledgement of the government to unite them as one in marriage- because it is a RIGHT and to prevent such would be an infringement on their FREEDOM.
Note the term's- RIGHT and FREEDOM.
Now, since they were granted that "right" and "freedom" they must now fight the GOVERNMENT for their "RIGHT" and "FREEDOM" to dissolve that "MARRIAGE".
The irony being, they are neither "FREE" nor are they exercising a "RIGHT." They are exercising a government granted PRIVILEGE!
Without that silly little piece of paper, they would have been FREE and within their RIGHT to unite or dissolve said union or marriage at WILL!
That my friends is freedom, at least as our founders would have defined it.
Then throw all marriage out the window. Everyone is free to pair up, raise children, and then move on with their lives if they so choose.

We'll let churches own the word "marriage". Only those couples who are afraid of being damned to eternal hell would seek matrimony.

Let's just take government completely out of the business of marriage. No one gets rights or protections. Everyone--gay, straight, whatever--can fend for themselves.

Such a GREAT idea! Why didn't the founders think of that?
San Bernardino

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190204
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Athens services trash haulers strike again!

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_23118173/a...
San Bernardino

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190205
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Still cheating the public, Athens?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190206
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You're of the opinion that you "know" quite a bit about this matter.
It's not "opinion", it's proven every time you are unable to provide a rational fact based retort.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, why do you waste your time talking to us "idiots"?
Obama said to spread the wealth, so here I am.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If all of us are morons--ignorant and uneducated on the subjects of Constitutional law, marriage, etc., why do you bother coming here?
You have self admitted that you are ignorant of the founding documents. So I figure you have two choices: 1) Remain so and keep looking like one -or- 2) Go educate yourself.

You seem to have chosen the latter.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Shouldn't you be arguing in a courtroom?
Perhaps I do, do you know?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Shouldn't you offer your "valuable insight" to the real world?
Are you fake?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I've pointed out your obvious flaw several times. You need to feel superior. You have anger issues.
Now you are just fabricating things in a sad attempt to save face.

You have been unable to point out a single flaw in my argument, and I am far from angry. For me to get angry with you, you would actually have to have the ability to effect my life. You don't, though your delusions of grandeur are comical.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
What whips up such fury in someone like you?
Where is the fury? The only anger I see is coming from you, you seem a bit upset about consistently having your ass handed to you.

Take note of your response here, you haven't even attempted to respond to a single question I posed to you, my guess is you lack the ability to. You have only presented two forms of replies to me: 1) A personal attack such as the one you presented here -or- 2) A rant of random talking points that have nothing to do with the subject matter.

Really it is pretty sad for someone who claims to hold a MSW. I would consider requesting a refund of my tuition if I were you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190207
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then throw all marriage out the window. Everyone is free to pair up, raise children, and then move on with their lives if they so choose.
We'll let churches own the word "marriage". Only those couples who are afraid of being damned to eternal hell would seek matrimony.
Let's just take government completely out of the business of marriage. No one gets rights or protections. Everyone--gay, straight, whatever--can fend for themselves.
Such a GREAT idea! Why didn't the founders think of that?
You are a bit late to the party, I have presented this position to you at least 5 times now. Perhaps if you would slow down and actually absorb the material I post it might not take you so long to catch on?
Rebounds

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190208
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Shut up you North Korean supporter.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190209
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>

Such a GREAT idea! Why didn't the founders think of that?
Go find me a State issued Marriage License for George and Martha Washington.
Gays have rights too

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190210
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Gay marriage receiving more support every day.

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/3259-would-...
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190211
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then throw all marriage out the window. Everyone is free to pair up, raise children, and then move on with their lives if they so choose.
We'll let churches own the word "marriage". Only those couples who are afraid of being damned to eternal hell would seek matrimony.
Let's just take government completely out of the business of marriage. No one gets rights or protections. Everyone--gay, straight, whatever--can fend for themselves.
Such a GREAT idea! Why didn't the founders think of that?
It is funny you say that, years ago that was my position, remove the word marriage from legal language, the government would not recognize any marriages, only civil unions.

Civil unions are a contract, between anyone that wanted one, couples, gay or straight, or a number of people, regardless of whether it was romantic or even nonromantic relationships.

Give churches the word marriage but make it legally meaningless.

That way Churches could have the word if they wanted it, straight churches could call their couples married, gay supporting churches could call their couples marriages, Poly churches could marry as many as they wanted and all would be equally in the eyes of the law as the underlying legal basis for any of them would be a civil union.

Not even my gay friends liked the idea

I gave it up, there was no support for it
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190212
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Gays have rights too wrote:
Gay marriage receiving more support every day.
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/3259-would-...
That is very very true, and not just here, but all around the world.

Love conquers hate, it just takes a while

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190213
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
OK... Let's look at "real America". In 2008, just over 40% of live births in this country were to single parent households. That's up from 18.4% in 1980.
I thought that evolutionary mating behavior (from a cross cultural perspective) depended on marriage.
Apparently not...
Don't throw gays under the bus just because you straight people can't seem to stay married.
Hundreds of thousands of us would love to be given the opportunity to marry someone for life.
You can't predict whether or not a gay couple will divorce any more than I can predict whether or not a straight couple will.
Mating behavior is not dependent on marriage. Again, are you serious??? No wonder you are so confused.

Marriage is a constraint (control) on mating behavior. Because the commitment of marriage has been weakened by easy divorce, and the consequences to children ignored, broken marriages and co-habitation have resulted. Calling ss couples married by totally removing children only exasperates the situation.

Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist except for the connection of children. Your premise that sterile gay couples will strengthen marriage is baseless. In fact, that is why the largest, latest and most scientific study to date on seven family types found lesbian couples last, AFTER single mothers. Gay couples did not even register out of THREE THOUSAND participants.

Not looking good VV...

Smirk.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190214
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Keep it simple, keep marriage as is, one man and one woman. KISS.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190215
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a bit late to the party, I have presented this position to you at least 5 times now. Perhaps if you would slow down and actually absorb the material I post it might not take you so long to catch on?
I was being flippant in my response to you. It's a ridiculous to believe that the government will stop its involvement in marriage in the foreseeable future.

No one who lives and works in the real world believes that this is an option.

And since it isn't an option, the only right thing to do is to make marriage and divorce available to those law abiding, tax paying, unrelated, consenting adult couples.

Whether it is through political action or judicial interpretation of the Constitution, it will happen. It's only a matter of time.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190218
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Mating behavior is not dependent on marriage. Again, are you serious??? No wonder you are so confused.
Marriage is a constraint (control) on mating behavior. Because the commitment of marriage has been weakened by easy divorce, and the consequences to children ignored, broken marriages and co-habitation have resulted. Calling ss couples married by totally removing children only exasperates the situation.
Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist except for the connection of children. Your premise that sterile gay couples will strengthen marriage is baseless. In fact, that is why the largest, latest and most scientific study to date on seven family types found lesbian couples last, AFTER single mothers. Gay couples did not even register out of THREE THOUSAND participants.
Not looking good VV...
Smirk.
I suggest that before there was legal marriage, couples still reproduced. It's how we all got here today.

Marriage is a manmade construct. Pairing up to produce offspring is a biological and psychological construct.

The study you cite compared apples and oranges. Not even the author of the study says that it should be utilized to determine if same-sex marriage should be legalized. It didn't indicate that the same-sex families had such horrific outcomes that the children should be immediately removed out of fear of abuse or neglect.

You draw conclusions from the study that not even the authors make.

You won't admit that parents stable, supportive, loving, same-gender parents are better than abusive, chaotic opposite-gender parents.

You still can't grasp that it is the skill of the parent that is the key variable when it comes to a child's success.
black jesus

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190219
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

jesus was black
missy

Anonymous Proxy

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190220
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

agreed
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190221
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Are you serious? Procreation is not a requirement in ANY marriage.
We have been telling them that for a long time now, it never ever has been. They have a vested interest in not comprehending that fact.

Never has the ability or intent to have children ever been a requirement for a marriage license
.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190222
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We have been telling them that for a long time now, it never ever has been. They have a vested interest in not comprehending that fact.
Never has the ability or intent to have children ever been a requirement for a marriage license
.
No one has said that procreation is a requirement for marriage.

Why do you keep lying?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190223
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Are you serious? Procreation is not a requirement in ANY marriage.
Can you read? No one has said procreation is a requirement for marriage.

You are a dope.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190224
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It is funny you say that, years ago that was my position, remove the word marriage from legal language, the government would not recognize any marriages, only civil unions.
Civil unions are a contract, between anyone that wanted one, couples, gay or straight, or a number of people, regardless of whether it was romantic or even nonromantic relationships.
Give churches the word marriage but make it legally meaningless.
That way Churches could have the word if they wanted it, straight churches could call their couples married, gay supporting churches could call their couples marriages, Poly churches could marry as many as they wanted and all would be equally in the eyes of the law as the underlying legal basis for any of them would be a civil union.
Not even my gay friends liked the idea
I gave it up, there was no support for it
As if you have any gay friends. Jizzy's not gay.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 166,061 - 166,080 of200,322
|
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.

Other Recent Palo Alto Discussions

Search the Palo Alto Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Tue Sparky A2 7,833
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Tue Ronald 2,251
Report: Retaliation by supervisors common at VA Mon Viet Nam Vet 1
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Mon Racjei 4,885
San Lorenzo man pleads not guilty to beating (Apr '09) Jul 18 annonymous 46
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Jul 11 This topics peaked 15,911
Review: Vencoa Inc (Jul '12) Jul 5 jainy2 54
•••
•••

Palo Alto News Video

•••
Palo Alto Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palo Alto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palo Alto
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••