Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191750 May 10, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>I did a bit of digging on the subject. You might want to look a bit deeper, as you are a complete dumbazz. The rise is attributed to heterosexuals, its in print.
By the way, history and I both warned about putting males and females in close quarters. Homosexuality only multiplies the danger.

At the expense of our nation's safety.

Traitorous stupidity.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191751 May 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a fact, a majority of American voters now approve of same sex marriage in the US. That could not be the case without a tremendous number of heterosexuals ( you and I ) supporting same sex marriage.
Guess what happens to reality when you take a poll on it?

Snicker.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191752 May 10, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>No buddy it was all you. Think back moron
Perhaps you'll post the permalink where I said I was a hero then tough guy.

Chop chop!! Make it snappy jackass!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191753 May 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
I don’t have any power at all, I am just laughing at folks that are so frightened of a word.
Marriage from a legal standpoint is a legal contract, that is all it is. There are believers in one religion that feel one way about it, there are believers of other religions that feel another way about it, and none of them agree, there are thousands of Christian and Jewish churches that want to preform same sex marriage.
No one speaks for all of them, and no single religion owns the word "marriage"
The only actual distinction is from the governments perspective, which is a legal contract.
I don’t care if it is between opposite sex couples or same sex couples or groups of people ( adults ), heck I don’t care if it is non-romantic couples ( elderly ladies that depend on one another )
It makes no difference to me, and does not affect me or my marriage in any way whatsoever.
But I do find it humorous how frightened some people are, by others being given the same rights as they have themselves.
It is just funny to me
Then what is the point? If it means anything and everything, why bother with a legally recognized contract?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191754 May 10, 2013
Equality Now wrote:
Love is the greatest emotion humans can offer one another. Why restrict a couple's love for one another? It's time that most of the archaic puritan "values" be put to rest.
Why restrict it to couples? Does a person need a license from the state to love? Maybe in Nevada......
Tort

San Dimas, CA

#191755 May 10, 2013
GOP/Republican's can't get a clear thought rolling if the end of the world depended on it.

Let alone gathering enough sober heads to cast a vote.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191756 May 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why restrict it to couples? Does a person need a license from the state to love? Maybe in Nevada......
I went to the Butt Hutt in Nevada in the late 60's and one of the pretty ladies had a button on that said "Free Love". Not having much money I chose her. When we got to her room I said "This is free, right? Your button says free love." She replied. "The love is free, the sex will cost you $50."

P.S. Gave her $70!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191757 May 10, 2013
Tort wrote:
GOP/Republican's can't get a clear thought rolling if the end of the world depended on it.
Let alone gathering enough sober heads to cast a vote.
Looks like Obama will be throwing Hillary under the bus! Bye bye 2016!

Ding Dong the witch is dead. The wicked witch...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191758 May 10, 2013
Hillary gets run over by the Benghazi bus, just as I told you clowns in November! Thump!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191759 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Same-gender couples do not want to legitimize their relationships through legal marriage to boost their self esteem.
"Legitimize" as in "no longer living in sin", "shacking up", "make honest men and women...uh men and men, and, women and women, out of each other?
As you very well know, there are many protections and benefits that come along with marriage. Many of these benefits and protections have nothing to do with children. Do you agree?
Yes I do.
2.) Regarding marriage between certain relatives... I didn't think that I had to spell it out for you. I am obviously talking about a marriage between siblings or a marriage between parent and child or between a grandparent and grandchild. You know exactly what I mean when I say "unrelated".
Why should siblings be excluded from marriage? If FCM (first cousin marriage) is legal, and SSM is legal in the same state, why ban same sex siblings from the benefits and protections of marriage? No risk of sexual reproduction there. There's no rational reason to argue a woman can marry her female first cousin, but not her sister.
I don't know that I need to explain why it is that same-gender marriage is completely different than incestuous marriage.
That's just it...the difference is not as great as you think it is. Same sex first cousins....same sex siblings......
If you seriously do not understand that there is a vast difference between a someone developing an emotional/physical relationship with a non-relative and someone developing an emotional/physical relationship with a relative, then I don't know that I can help you.
Expain the difference, between same sex first cousin marriage and sibling marriage. Is there really that much of a significant difference to the state?
Suffice it to say that we are not here to discuss incestuous marriages. Any attempts to lead this discussion away from the primary topic--i.e.: same-gender marriage--is nothing more than a distraction.
What are we discussing here, in its simplest form. How marriage is legally defined. If its an exclusive monogamous union of husband and wife, then there's not alot of deviation there. However if its, "Spouses for life"........room for discussion, and definition.
I won't entertain it.
You won't entertain? Oh the humanity! Turn in your Bravo channel membership.....easy there Big V, just kidding.
3.) A marriage is a contract between two consenting, adult, unrelated people. It is not a contract between two people and their offspring. That is why there aren't two separate definitions set aside for people who intend to have children and those who do not intend to have children.
Let's go wtih not close blood relatives, after all first cousins are related. As to the second, marriage is a legal contract that deals with a specific relationship, husband and wife, and yes it references their sexual union. Thus words like "consumation", "marital relations", and let's not forget the concept, "prersumption of paternity" which presumes the husband is the father of any children born within the marital relationship, unless there is evidence to the contrary I beleive.
And with regards to term "civil union"; there are no other identical contracts that provides identical protections and benefits but have different names.
Waitaminit here VeeVee...I believe you're the one who pointed out in a previous post the new institutions and social that exist today, that didn't exist even a few decades ago. Different times, different situations, different solution.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191760 May 10, 2013
The liberal media is finally doing their job on Benghazi, with ABC taking the lead. The shine is off Obama's apple. Hillary's head will roll!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191761 May 10, 2013
Thump! There goes old piano legs!

It's the Clintons vs Obama over who takes the fall for the coverup in Benghazi. Gonna be good sport! The Clintons won't go down easy.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#191762 May 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
The liberal media is finally doing their job on Benghazi, with ABC taking the lead. The shine is off Obama's apple. Hillary's head will roll!
It's a coverup. From top to bottom. A gay man is killed. and The Obamaniac and Clinton scream "What does it matter ???"

Just like Watergate.

Time to impeach this bum !

Throw Stumblebum Joe in there.

NEXT !

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191763 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If legally joined same-gender couples would enjoy all of the benefits and protections as legally joined opposite-gender couples, then why should there be different terminology?
If you have a red rose and a pink rose, they are BOTH roses with only subtle differences.
All the benefits All the presumptions? All the protections? Everything the same? Uhhhhhhhh....not quite.

If you have two edible patties. Both have a similar brownish color, both are close in texture, and both even have grill marks. Obviously they must be hamburgers, they look like hamburgers, why they're even on buns with ketchup and mustard. Surprise! The one on the left is made from soy. The proof is in the pudding....uh burger.

We both know, evn though a veggie patty is called a "burger", its not, nor is "tofurkey", turkey. Appearences can be deceiving.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191764 May 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
All the benefits All the presumptions? All the protections? Everything the same? Uhhhhhhhh....not quite.
If you have two edible patties. Both have a similar brownish color, both are close in texture, and both even have grill marks. Obviously they must be hamburgers, they look like hamburgers, why they're even on buns with ketchup and mustard. Surprise! The one on the left is made from soy. The proof is in the pudding....uh burger.
We both know, evn though a veggie patty is called a "burger", its not, nor is "tofurkey", turkey. Appearences can be deceiving.
A hamburger is a hamburger. A garden burger is a garden burger. These are two very different items--not even in the same ballpark.

Marriage, whether it's between same-gender or opposite gender couples, is composed of human beings. You said as much yourself when you suggested that same-gender couples should have all of the rights and benefits of marriage, but call it civil unions.
paul

Bronx, NY

#191765 May 10, 2013
just stupid, frankly
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191766 May 10, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a coverup. From top to bottom. A gay man is killed. and The Obamaniac and Clinton scream "What does it matter ???"
Just like Watergate.
Time to impeach this bum !
Throw Stumblebum Joe in there.
NEXT !
Can you imagine? Giggling Joe becomes president? With those big fake white teeth. Spouting goofy nonsense.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191768 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
A hamburger is a hamburger. A garden burger is a garden burger. These are two very different items--not even in the same ballpark.
Different ingredients, yet both are called burgers. Interesting....
Marriage, whether it's between same-gender or opposite gender couples, is composed of human beings. You said as much yourself when you suggested that same-gender couples should have all of the rights and benefits of marriage, but call it civil unions.
Different situations, different solutions.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191769 May 10, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you ASSume that gay people are sterile? Why do you ASSume that a liberal can not be patriotic? I think perhalps Colin Powell might just disagree.
Do try to keep up. 2 men cannot be a fertile couple. Impossible, see? 2 women may access laboratory processes to circumvent the lack of fertility. See? Wait until you get to 9th Grade, and they explain reproduction, it will be made clear to you, then...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191770 May 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think excluding homosexuals from fighting for us was very stupid. From my experience they make fine soldiers and sailors. Who cares if someone peeks at your little winky dink anyway?
LOL "Winky Dink And You"...first interactive TV show, I have early recollections of it..

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
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) 12 hr ohno 155
News Ricoh Keenai photo management system launches w... Wed sunrisesunset 1
News Man in car exposes himself to woman in Palo Alto Dec 1 Kevin from Michigan 1
Uber for Drones - "Palo Altitude" startup Nov 30 Palo Altitude 1
News Tesla competitor Lucid Motors picks Arizona for... Nov 30 I Got Your Jewels 5
News Trump deportation plan sends South Bay leaders ... Nov 29 spytheweb 2
Sunnyvale Parrot Study (Dec '09) Nov 27 lol 29

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages