Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,965

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
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190376 Apr 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"White guy"? Don't forget the Italian half.
Ichi-ban-paisan.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190377 Apr 27, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
You stupid dumb blonde. You have been saying this for the past two years. All you morons thought this was an easy win, but you are wrong again. lol
Where you been, driver? You get lost at a coop? D.O.T. get ahold of you?
:-D
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190378 Apr 27, 2013
Bruno wrote:
I have a fresh bunch of green bananas for you HO
Nice.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190379 Apr 27, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
lol ... I know just the man for you he goes by akpilot or something like that . you will finkd him here, talk to him
Still with the IFF issues, I see...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190380 Apr 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No in California 18,000 same sex couples are legally married, while others are no allowed to marry. They are demanding equal rights as other same sex couples have, and they will get them. One way or the other.
No sir, in recognition of the error of the first lot getting married, they are not wishing to repeat the mistake. It is not unfair to prevent further mistakes from occurring. In fact, it shows a glimmer (only a glimmer) of rational thought.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190381 Apr 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. And if I post it anyway, my post will be deleted. As evidenced by a missing post number.
You should have learned that a while ago, as i did. Red writing = need to edit post. Unlike gays, who get a free permit to type without restriction. Even though X-ed-out thinks that he can fool people into believing that we are paranoid.
west

Anonymous Proxy

#190382 Apr 27, 2013
west up
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190383 Apr 28, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No sir, in recognition of the error of the first lot getting married, they are not wishing to repeat the mistake. It is not unfair to prevent further mistakes from occurring. In fact, it shows a glimmer (only a glimmer) of rational thought.
Not an error.. they are legally married.

There are legally married same sex couples in california. A large part of the equal rights issue is that some same sex couples are treated unequally to other same sex couples

You should know this, it is the stake in the heart of Prop 8

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190384 Apr 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not an error.. they are legally married.
There are legally married same sex couples in california. A large part of the equal rights issue is that some same sex couples are treated unequally to other same sex couples
You should know this, it is the stake in the heart of Prop 8
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective sterile failure of mating behavior.

Moreover, it is an insult to intelligence trying to equate a ss duplicated sterile half to marriage.

You should know this, it is the foundation of Prop 8.

Smirk.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190385 Apr 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective sterile failure of mating behavior.
Moreover, it is an insult to intelligence trying to equate a ss duplicated sterile half to marriage.
You should know this, it is the foundation of Prop 8.
Smirk.
Do you really think anybody believes the bullshit you post on here?

You've become a perfect example of self-mockery.

From where I sit, you continue to look like a self-loathing, one-trick-pony, closet case; whose biggest contribution to the umpteen forums you haunt is to cut and paste snippets of your own fabricated ass-holery.

Do us all a favor and come up with something new, Mary.

Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190386 Apr 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not an error.. they are legally married.
There are legally married same sex couples in california. A large part of the equal rights issue is that some same sex couples are treated unequally to other same sex couples
You should know this, it is the stake in the heart of Prop 8
Contradiction in terms. They were erroneously married. This is the error. This is why they must not repeat the error. The error of being married. You should know this. This might be the stake in the heart of Prop 8, but it is the error of being married that is being used to further the error of their marriages. Repetition of a mistake is an error. The fact that they were married does not make it right. And it does give free license to make more mistakes. Slavery was once legal. Allowing slavery to resurface would be a mistake. Using your logic, which we both know is faulty, we should allow slavery to resurface, because "it happened before, it should again". That's some kind of thought process...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190387 Apr 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think anybody believes the bullshit you post on here?
You've become a perfect example of self-mockery.
From where I sit, you continue to look like a self-loathing, one-trick-pony, closet case; whose biggest contribution to the umpteen forums you haunt is to cut and paste snippets of your own fabricated ass-holery.
Do us all a favor and come up with something new, Mary.
Do you really think anybody believes the bullshit you post on here?

You've become a perfect example of self-mockery.

From where I sit, you continue to look like a self-loathing, one-trick-pony, closet case; whose biggest contribution to the umpteen forums you haunt is to cut and paste snippets of your own fabricated ass-holery.

Do us all a favor and come up with something new, Mary.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190388 Apr 28, 2013
I wonder if Big D is going to pontificate down to us today from the top of jackass mountain?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190389 Apr 28, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Contradiction in terms. They were erroneously married. This is the error. This is why they must not repeat the error. The error of being married. You should know this. This might be the stake in the heart of Prop 8, but it is the error of being married that is being used to further the error of their marriages. Repetition of a mistake is an error. The fact that they were married does not make it right. And it does give free license to make more mistakes. Slavery was once legal. Allowing slavery to resurface would be a mistake. Using your logic, which we both know is faulty, we should allow slavery to resurface, because "it happened before, it should again". That's some kind of thought process...
You can have that opinion, same as opinions that the moon landings were faked or your opinion of which imaginary playmate is the big kahuna, or that JFK is alive and well and living with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa in Cuba

But they are legally married under the law, as legal as your marriage or mine, your personal opinion means squat in a court of law. Only the law is recognized in court, and the law is, they were legally married.

Other same sex couples are suing for equal rights with those married same sex couples.

That is why they will win, one way or the other

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190390 Apr 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think anybody believes the bullshit you post on here?
You've become a perfect example of self-mockery.
From where I sit, you continue to look like a self-loathing, one-trick-pony, closet case; whose biggest contribution to the umpteen forums you haunt is to cut and paste snippets of your own fabricated ass-holery.
Do us all a favor and come up with something new, Mary.
Oh Francis dear, you know my stuff is always fresh.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190391 Apr 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You can have that opinion, same as opinions that the moon landings were faked or your opinion of which imaginary playmate is the big kahuna, or that JFK is alive and well and living with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa in Cuba
But they are legally married under the law, as legal as your marriage or mine, your personal opinion means squat in a court of law. Only the law is recognized in court, and the law is, they were legally married.
Other same sex couples are suing for equal rights with those married same sex couples.
That is why they will win, one way or the other
What no "I will fight you for truth! justice! and the American way!"?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190392 Apr 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Francis dear, you know my stuff is always fresh.
That's Mr. Rizzo to you.

Yes your stuff is so fresh it steams.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190393 Apr 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You can have that opinion, same as opinions that the moon landings were faked or your opinion of which imaginary playmate is the big kahuna, or that JFK is alive and well and living with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa in Cuba
But they are legally married under the law, as legal as your marriage or mine, your personal opinion means squat in a court of law. Only the law is recognized in court, and the law is, they were legally married.
Other same sex couples are suing for equal rights with those married same sex couples.
That is why they will win, one way or the other
Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 to restrict marriages to only those between opposite-sex couples. In May 2008, it was struck down by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution.

The Act was proposed by means of the initiative process. It was authored by the state senator William "Pete" Knight and is known informally as the Knight initiative. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61% in favor to 39% against.[1] This large margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at only 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided.[2]

The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15, 2008 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry.[3] This 43 decision invalidated Proposition 22 and some related California laws.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190394 Apr 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 to restrict marriages to only those between opposite-sex couples. In May 2008, it was struck down by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution.
The Act was proposed by means of the initiative process. It was authored by the state senator William "Pete" Knight and is known informally as the Knight initiative. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61% in favor to 39% against.[1] This large margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at only 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided.[2]
The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15, 2008 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry.[3] This 43 decision invalidated Proposition 22 and some related California laws.
Are you trying to argue that there are not 18,000 legally married and recognized same sex couples in California today?

Wrong! Go study and come back
GeeHauders

Covina, CA

#190396 Apr 28, 2013
Make mine a GeeHauder to GO?

When your wear a rag on your head, no wonder you get caught up doing stupid things.

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
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 2,268
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr Mel 15,998
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 2 hr sanford 5,073
US stocks start lower 3 hr Go Blue Forever 30
How would you like to/be proposed? 9 hr Hopeless Romantic 1
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 21 hr Blazing saddles 7,954
Disney On Ice presents Worlds of Fantasy coming... 23 hr malloryciliberti 1
•••

Palo Alto News Video

•••
Palo Alto Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••