Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,449

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

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190620 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm aware there are a number of fake, imposter, sterile, duplicate half of marriage pretendies, but no such thing as a 'ss marriage'.
Smile.
<quoted text>
It's clear you have no argument with the defunct stance of ss couples with marriage.
However, I've never proclaimed myself as half of anything. A genetic chimera has the full DNA of two people, and no epi-marker mistakes like homosexuals. We are however both sexual mutations. You however are in denial about it.
Smile.
<quoted text>
You lied about my last 'proclamation', now you are showing your ignorance by your next claimed 'proclamation' by me.
Look up the difference between a genetic chimera and epi-genetics.
You are by default, admitting you are a sexual defect. Come out. Facing reality bravely is the first step to real life. Admit it.
Smile.
Are you now saying that you are not a Lesbian trapped in a mans body?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190621 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The slut lesbian is not on the marriage license. In fact, I have to cover her one eye when I'm with my wife.
So how is it that you have a slut lesbian inside of yourself, but, you don't have your so-called "epi-marker mistake"?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190622 Apr 30, 2013
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
As an aside: Are you really happy living like this KiMare, dividing yourself into man and lesbian? Yes it is only my opinion, but surely it's mentally healthier to accept oneself as an integrated whole; and to refer to oneself as an unique individual not as a monster mutation.
Yes, I agree the basis of marriage when it first existed was as a means of regulating mating. But as I've said (you constantly repeat yourself, so I'm taking that as a license to repeat myself) it is so much more than that, especially in the modern day. With so many children being born outside of wedlock, its original purpose of constraining reproduction is limited at best. Throughout the Centuries people have married for financial security and transaction. Apart from certain tax, legal, citizenship benefits I would say the majority of today's marriages are for love and not because of having a family. SSM, it may be sterile but it is not a duplicated half marriage. You of all people ought to appreciate that there is duality within all of us. Males and females have aspects within them of their gender opposites. Not only that but people (in hetero marriages) often choose partners quite similar to themselves physically and in personality so that's not really an opposite is it; and it doesn't make it a half duplicate marriage.
People in different parts of the world have different expectations and social norms of marriage, arranged marriage being just one example, is it so hard to comprehend or accept a different sort of marriage within our (Western) culture? that of SSM. I would equate the two with love, and partnership and hopefully with equality of legal rights and recognition; doesn't mean they are interchangeable.
Again, how does SSM directly impact hetero marriage? And, I'm thinking legally you are a man, but in actuality you are not, so you yourself have a pretendie marriage because it was not one man and one woman. You have male DNA does not make you male when you also have female DNA; it makes you Intersexed, or as you prefer the old fashioned term, hermaphrodite. There is currently no provision for us to marry as we are. We have to marry as male or female. If the wording of a marriage was changed to two persons then it would include SSM and ourselves. What are your thoughts on that?
I appreciate the sincerity you approach with.

1. I have no problem with GLBT's facing the reality of who they are. I continue that reality acceptance, and find that 'different' people appreciate the consistency. I share my reality with a brashness when dealing with denial. Many GLBT's do exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is, I AM a monster mutation.

2. I have never limited marriage to procreation. That is really a dishonest assertion about me... I simply take marriage to it's fundamental essence. In fact, if I take marriage to it's earliest roots, it is the reunion of gender to it's prehistoric genderless simple life form. I also use the issue of anal sex for the same purpose; expose the silliness of trying to equate ss couples to marriage.

Here is the bottom line; The union of a heterosexual couple, and the fruit that is most often the result are described as marriage and family. Those words describe a situation like no other. If the words marriage and family are subverted by a different type of relationship (as you suggest), there is no longer a description that expresses that distinction.

This begs the question, why don't ss couples establish their own identity and legal rights? Why the demand that we pretend that marriage and family are the same as ss couples? Do you have an answer?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190623 Apr 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not. And that's a fact, not an opinion. Marriage between two same sex PEOPLE is a fact in several states.
Marriage between same sex couples would be polygamy and that's illegal in all states.
What a dope!
Fransissy Fransissy is such a twitty
He twists a post and he thinks heís witty
He goes on and on and on about poly
When everyone knows itís just his folly
His attacks on others that are different than him
Prove to Gay Americans that he is just dim
Maybe heíll realize that SSM is a right
But until then we wonít give up the fight.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190624 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Fransissy Fransissy is such a twitty
He twists a post and he thinks heís witty
He goes on and on and on about poly
When everyone knows itís just his folly
His attacks on others that are different than him
Prove to Gay Americans that he is just dim
Maybe heíll realize that SSM is a right
But until then we wonít give up the fight.
I fully support your right to equal protection. I have been to several gay weddings of people I love. Gay weddings are the best!

Too bad you don't support marriage equality as I do.

Hope that clarifies my position, dummy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190626 Apr 30, 2013
I find it difficult to see Marram's logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Marram? Why? And why are you a hypocrite? How would a loving marriage of three men hurt you?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190627 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the sincerity you approach with.
1. I have no problem with GLBT's facing the reality of who they are. I continue that reality acceptance, and find that 'different' people appreciate the consistency. I share my reality with a brashness when dealing with denial. Many GLBT's do exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is, I AM a monster mutation.
2. I have never limited marriage to procreation. That is really a dishonest assertion about me... I simply take marriage to it's fundamental essence. In fact, if I take marriage to it's earliest roots, it is the reunion of gender to it's prehistoric genderless simple life form. I also use the issue of anal sex for the same purpose; expose the silliness of trying to equate ss couples to marriage.
Here is the bottom line; The union of a heterosexual couple, and the fruit that is most often the result are described as marriage and family. Those words describe a situation like no other. If the words marriage and family are subverted by a different type of relationship (as you suggest), there is no longer a description that expresses that distinction.
This begs the question, why don't ss couples establish their own identity and legal rights? Why the demand that we pretend that marriage and family are the same as ss couples? Do you have an answer?
Can you name one two legal contracts that are EXACTLY the same other than in name?

If Same-Sex Couples get a license to join their relationship in every single way that Opposite-Sex Couples, why should it be called something different?

The government doesn't have an interest in creating two identical unions with differing names.

You're a traditionalist. And that's fine. But it's not enough to develop a whole separate definition.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190628 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
So how is it that you have a slut lesbian inside of yourself, but, you don't have your so-called "epi-marker mistake"?
Marram, you realize that Kimare's term, "epi-marker mistake" is not a real term, don't you?

He believes that he can fool people into thinking that homosexuality is a mistake.

He loves making up scientific-sounding words. But, he's pretty lousy at it; even for a washed-up pastor.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190629 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the sincerity you approach with.
1. I have no problem with GLBT's facing the reality of who they are. I continue that reality acceptance, and find that 'different' people appreciate the consistency. I share my reality with a brashness when dealing with denial. Many GLBT's do exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is, I AM a monster mutation.
2. I have never limited marriage to procreation. That is really a dishonest assertion about me... I simply take marriage to it's fundamental essence. In fact, if I take marriage to it's earliest roots, it is the reunion of gender to it's prehistoric genderless simple life form. I also use the issue of anal sex for the same purpose; expose the silliness of trying to equate ss couples to marriage.
Here is the bottom line; The union of a heterosexual couple, and the fruit that is most often the result are described as marriage and family. Those words describe a situation like no other. If the words marriage and family are subverted by a different type of relationship (as you suggest), there is no longer a description that expresses that distinction.
This begs the question, why don't ss couples establish their own identity and legal rights? Why the demand that we pretend that marriage and family are the same as ss couples? Do you have an answer?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you name one two legal contracts that are EXACTLY the same other than in name?
If Same-Sex Couples get a license to join their relationship in every single way that Opposite-Sex Couples, why should it be called something different?
The government doesn't have an interest in creating two identical unions with differing names.
You're a traditionalist. And that's fine. But it's not enough to develop a whole separate definition.
You are avoiding the point with a lie.

Surprise.

Snicker.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190630 Apr 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I find it difficult to see Marram's logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Marram? Why? And why are you a hypocrite? How would a loving marriage of three men hurt you?
Relax poly boi

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190631 Apr 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Marram, you realize that Kimare's term, "epi-marker mistake" is not a real term, don't you?
He believes that he can fool people into thinking that homosexuality is a mistake.
He loves making up scientific-sounding words. But, he's pretty lousy at it; even for a washed-up pastor.
Of course I do. Can you follow my line of questioning? Let me spell it out for you, if itís a Lesbian (in part or whole) how can its incessant babble about how Gay Americans have some sort of defect not admit itís junk science points out itís own defect? Do you get it? I canít believe you had to ask.
Pukers

Covina, CA

#190632 Apr 30, 2013
Let the puking begin, this topic is dead.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190633 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the sincerity you approach with.
1. I have no problem with GLBT's facing the reality of who they are. I continue that reality acceptance, and find that 'different' people appreciate the consistency. I share my reality with a brashness when dealing with denial. Many GLBT's do exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is, I AM a monster mutation.
2. I have never limited marriage to procreation. That is really a dishonest assertion about me... I simply take marriage to it's fundamental essence. In fact, if I take marriage to it's earliest roots, it is the reunion of gender to it's prehistoric genderless simple life form. I also use the issue of anal sex for the same purpose; expose the silliness of trying to equate ss couples to marriage.
Here is the bottom line; The union of a heterosexual couple, and the fruit that is most often the result are described as marriage and family. Those words describe a situation like no other. If the words marriage and family are subverted by a different type of relationship (as you suggest), there is no longer a description that expresses that distinction.
This begs the question, why don't ss couples establish their own identity and legal rights? Why the demand that we pretend that marriage and family are the same as ss couples? Do you have an answer?
<quoted text>
You are avoiding the point with a lie.
Surprise.
Snicker.
You know, I just adore when you respond in this way. It only makes you seem more bizarre with each passing day.

At what point do I "lie".

You asked a question and I answered it.

Do you know of any pair of legal contracts that are exactly the same in every way, but are called by completely different names?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190634 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax poly boi
No Fairyhopper.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190635 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I do. Can you follow my line of questioning? Let me spell it out for you, if itís a Lesbian (in part or whole) how can its incessant babble about how Gay Americans have some sort of defect not admit itís junk science points out itís own defect? Do you get it? I canít believe you had to ask.
Why are you a hater?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190636 Apr 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you a hater?
Ah shuddup, hater.
Windover

Covina, CA

#190637 Apr 30, 2013
I was informed this topic was as good as gone, what happened did some Mormon BLOW some life back in to it?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190638 Apr 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it would be up to the lawmakers in those states to try to pass an Amendment to the Constitution--not the voters. So, I'm not so concerned about what individual voters might or might not do.
You really don't understand how our system of government works, do you?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
And you seem to forget that Proposition 8 will be five years old come November.
So? The Constitution is 225 years old.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
And the backlash to that backlash has been the overwhelming support of CA voters who would not likely vote for such a ballot today.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I seem to remember this same argument with Prop 8.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Times have changed considerably.
Not really.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Republican lawmakers at all levels have changed their personal views re: same-sex marriage.
You paint with such a broad brush. Life must be grand in fantasy land.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
And many of these lawmakers DO NOT want to be forced to stand against same-sex marriage. They would welcome the Supreme Court's ability to make a sweeping decision.
Has less to do with being forced, and more to do with a political play. But who cares if our elected officials uphold their oath's to support the Constitution?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand by my predictions.
That's nice.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190639 Apr 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I see you guys throwing straight supporters of same-sex marriage under the bus all the time. It's hardly gruesome.
And nobody knows exactly how many gay people there are in this country.
Not everyone who participates in homosexual activity thinks of his/herself as gay. Many closeted gays would admit to being gay, even though they have attractions to members of the same gender.
So you're probably not going to get an accurate count anytime soon.
Nevertheless, you can rest assured that most in the LGBT community AND our heterosexual allies do, in fact, support same-sex marriage.
You sure do like to spend a lot of time talking about nothing important at all, don't you?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190640 Apr 30, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes,it seems sometimes you really don't think things through! Sorry OH great one but there have now been 3 states that have passed Marriage equality by popular vote! Now,are you lying or was it an honest mistake on the part of your ignorance? Geez,and we all thought you knew it all! Care to try again?
3 states by popular vote,Maine,Maryland and Washington state!
www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-cam...
Yup, my error. I stand corrected. 3 States.

Unlike most on your side, I can admit a mistake and actually learn something. I don't have an agenda like so many others.

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
Racial profiling by Facebook against Natives, w... 20 hr ghostdancer1890 1
Awful humming/thrumming sound in the middle of ... (Jun '12) Wed Suzette 37
Downtown North Wed ralph 1
UPDATE 1-Vivus says erectile dysfunction drug m... (Sep '12) Tue joshjonhson 20
Complaints Against Google+ (Jul '14) Mar 2 andrewharas 100
Long Beacha s middle class, then ... and now Mar 1 Lucy 4
Moderators why have i been shadow banned? (Jun '14) Feb 27 Fracking Doodooda 4

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:18 pm PST

Bleacher Report 4:18PM
How Does Darnell Dockett Signing Impact 49ers' Offseason Plans?
ESPN 4:58 PM
49ers sign WR Simpson to two-year deal
Bleacher Report 5:10 PM
Aldon Smith, 49ers Restructure Contract: Latest Details, Comments and Reaction
Yahoo! Sports 5:57 PM
Jones-Drew retires from NFL
ESPN 6:22 PM
49ers OL Smith converts salary into bonuses