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 8,353)

Showing posts 167,041 - 167,060 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191251
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think we have three branches of government and checks and balances?
No Californian who dislikes the idea of gay marriage has to marry someone of the same sex, so no harm is coming to them.
And if those who voted for Prop H8 decide not to vote ever again, that's a good thing.
Right! We'll keep voting on it till it comes out right dammit!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191253
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey monster, doesn't science consider chimerism a defect?
Should you have been aborted?
LOL!
Why would a "marriage" you got involved in be considered real?
:)
Where's "Marram"?

Who insists Rose_NoHo's post are "intelligent and insightful".

I'd hate for him to miss this gem of intelligence and insight.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191254
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a Virgo trait. I'm ruled by my planets.
Astrology is silly nonsense. I am a scientist.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191255
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a Virgo trait. I'm ruled by my planets.
You surely are wordy. You lose your audience that way, don't make us work so hard. But aside from that, I kinda like your passion. You are not so angry and nasty as so many of the people of tolerance and diversity.

I hope you get what you want. It makes me happy when people find each other and create a family, I'm silly like that. Good luck.

Marriage. There is no one right way!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191256
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The article cites OLD ideas that science has discounted. It concludes with the observation that an answer should have been found long ago. Instead, no purpose for homosexuality has been found. That means the most likely answer is a defect. Something epi-genetics is asserting.
2. We've been down this road before. I've posted the earliest records of berdaches and read them. Aside from roles you listed that have no roots in history, the others are one time notes or rumors that history records. However, the most often role of Indian transvestites is as the term denotes, male prostitutes. They were most often passed around, abused and mocked. You only confirm what I noted. Societal rejection of homosexuality is cross cultural.
3. The assertion you made was that gay marriage was prevalent. You simply noted the presence of homosexuality. Again, the actual record of gay 'marriages' can be counted on one hand.
Smile.
We are discussing the article that you cited several posts ago. That article discusses "homosexuality", not "gay marriage".

If the history of homosexuality is so scarce, why did the author of the article discuss its presence in various cultures throughout history?

As David P. Barash, the author of your article, puts it, "if homosexuality is in any sense a product of evolution—and it clearly is, for reasons to be explained—then genetic factors associated with same-sex preference must enjoy some sort of reproductive advantage."

You keep hanging your hat on the "epi-genetic theory". What you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that this theory DOES NOT indicate a mistake of nature. The theory simply offers an explanation of why there are gay people.

Since scientists have already determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexuality, then it is ridiculous for you to continue claiming that homosexuality is a "mistake".
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191257
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not real marriages.
Yes they are, they are legal marriages as legal as anyone else’s

Your opinion of their marriage is no more important than my low opinion of your marriage, the only opinion that has any weight, any weight at all, is the legal opinion, and they ARE married.... period
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191258
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are, they are legal marriages as legal as anyone else’s
Your opinion of their marriage is no more important than my low opinion of your marriage, the only opinion that has any weight, any weight at all, is the legal opinion, and they ARE married.... period
"...my low opinion of your marriage."

Nice!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191260
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you one of those dopes who believes a poly marriage asks for too much protection? That there's only enough protection for two in a marriage? So therefore poly should not be allowed?
Oh! That's right, you're the one who says that "polygamy is not an equal rights issue, it just isn't".
Yes indeed. We are talking about the Constitutional right to equal protection. You would limit it.
You're pretty stupid.
I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.
And I won't.
I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.
If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.
Should a person be able to marry more than one person?
Well, why not start a forum on that subject?
Tax needs to Drop

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191261
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Taxes on Californians were just raised by billions of dollars.

We're paying higher federal, state and local taxes this year.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191262
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're pretty stupid.
I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.
And I won't.
I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.
If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.
Should a person be able to marry more than one person?
Well, why not start a forum on that subject?
No. This is a perfectly good marriage equality forum. Why don't you start a thread on "are you a monster?" and "do you think you should have been aborted" type nonsense?

By your logic same sex marriage is not an equal rights issue because no one can marry someone of the same sex in many states there.

It's crazy that you truly believe equal rights applies only to gender.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191263
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Tax needs to Drop wrote:
Taxes on Californians were just raised by billions of dollars.
We're paying higher federal, state and local taxes this year.
OY! Tell me about it. I mailed CA a HUGE check last month. I pay taxes in CA and NY, two of the highest tax rates in the country. I am taxed well over half my income.

Yes we can! But didn't. And won't.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191264
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing the article that you cited several posts ago. That article discusses "homosexuality", not "gay marriage".
If the history of homosexuality is so scarce, why did the author of the article discuss its presence in various cultures throughout history?
As David P. Barash, the author of your article, puts it, "if homosexuality is in any sense a product of evolution—and it clearly is, for reasons to be explained—then genetic factors associated with same-sex preference must enjoy some sort of reproductive advantage."
You keep hanging your hat on the "epi-genetic theory". What you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that this theory DOES NOT indicate a mistake of nature. The theory simply offers an explanation of why there are gay people.
Since scientists have already determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexuality, then it is ridiculous for you to continue claiming that homosexuality is a "mistake".
Gay twirl.

WE were discussing both the history of marriage AND homosexuality. The article related to the later. I've never asserted that GLBT wasn't present at a defect rate of about 4%.

Epi-markers are 'normally' erased. They weren't fully erased in the case of homosexuals. Unbiased persons would term that a 'mistake'.

Scientists have NOT determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation. That is the whole point of the article. Some psychologists have made an assertion unvalidated by scientists.

Keep trying...

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191265
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And again if the majority of brown eyed people voted to deny rights to blue eyed people that too would be tossed out for being unconstitutional, and if the vote happens again, you don’t have the votes to keep it in place anymore anyway
Soooo......the mighty Big D is comparing the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the color of a person's eyes? Hmmmm.....number of sexes-two.....so there must be only two colors for eyes-blue and brown. Uhhhh huh. So men are the blue eyed people, and women the brown?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191266
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think we have three branches of government and checks and balances?
No Californian who dislikes the idea of gay marriage has to marry someone of the same sex, so no harm is coming to them.
And if those who voted for Prop H8 decide not to vote ever again, that's a good thing.
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191267
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right! We'll keep voting on it till it comes out right dammit!
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191268
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're pretty stupid.
I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.
And I won't.
I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.
If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.
Should a person be able to marry more than one person?
Well, why not start a forum on that subject?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191270
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. This is a perfectly good marriage equality forum. Why don't you start a thread on "are you a monster?" and "do you think you should have been aborted" type nonsense?
By your logic same sex marriage is not an equal rights issue because no one can marry someone of the same sex in many states there.
It's crazy that you truly believe equal rights applies only to gender.
Considering the way prop 8 was worded, it also banned polygamy, or any future consideration there of. You're right.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191271
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
<quoted text>
Considering the way prop 8 was worded, it also banned polygamy, or any future consideration there of. You're right.
Did you want to make a wager on whether polygamy will be legal when prop 8 is overturned?

What you are saying is like saying that Murder was banned when assault weapons were banned.

Those darn gun control hippies banned Murder!
Praise Jesus

Harrisonburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191272
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
<quoted text>
Considering the way prop 8 was worded, it also banned polygamy, or any future consideration there of. You're right.
I agree and these morons don't comprehend that but the homosexuals are suing everyone now for special rights and privileges that supersede heterosexuals to have the fear factor over our society.
Praise Jesus

Harrisonburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191273
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're pretty stupid.
I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.
And I won't.
I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.
If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.
Should a person be able to marry more than one person?
Well, why not start a forum on that subject?
I personally think, from what I have read, the reason you refuse to give a position on poly marriage is because you want this with your homosexual marriages adding to the enormous list of special rights and privileges that supersede heterosexuals. You were married to a man at one time and father children with you so why not be married to both.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 167,041 - 167,060 of199,087
|
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.

5 Users are viewing the Palo Alto Forum right now

Search the Palo Alto Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 49 min Coal is King 7,309
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr Open Market Canada 15,673
Earth's extinction rate highly exaggerated: Study 6 hr FACT 1
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sat Drafty 4,559
Massive Octopus kite at Shoreline (Jun '08) Apr 17 Charlie 5
Review: Calvary Chapel (Apr '09) Apr 15 Matthew Perri 27
CA Who do you support for Governor in California i... (Oct '10) Apr 13 Just fine 3,746
•••
•••

Palo Alto News Video

•••
•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••