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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196152 Jun 15, 2013
just wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn good question. So why should we change laws to please the Sphincter Fundies©?
Zoro's not much of a thinker.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196153 Jun 15, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask him what his kind, the feminist wackos, think about the "demeaning" part.
Since I'm not a feminist wacko, why don't you ask one yourself. I hear many of them like to use strap-ons. I encourage you to use Google if you need any more information.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196154 Jun 15, 2013
The media and the same-sex marriage lobby tend to conveniently ignore the fact that many people with same-sex attraction oppose redefining marriage. This is because it completely undermines the general branding of defenders of traditional marriage as “homophobic bigots.”

Tom Geoghegan from BBC News has a very interesting article on his interviews with a range of people with same-sex attraction who nevertheless oppose redefining marriage. The reasons given are varied, but the telling factor is that they realise what the debate is about: the issue is not same-sex couples; the issue is marriage: what it is, and what its purpose is.

"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."

Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.

But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.

"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/1...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#196155 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget to mention the lesbian couple, who on their wedding day dress in "heterosexual" attire. One wears the wedding dress, the other the tuxedo. Sounds like they're heterosexuals trapped in homosexual bodies.
And don't forget to mention the majority of lesbians who do not. Most folks don't really worry about what another couple wears (or doesn't) on their wedding day. Weddings are usually designed to suit the likes and dislikes of the couples involved.

Some women are more comfortable in "traditionally" female clothes. Some are more comfortable on more traditionally male clothes. Some could care less about the whole thing.

And this applies to ALL women, not just lesbians. If you disagree, you aren't living in a rural area. Most of the female farmers around here are, in dress, indistinguishable from their husbands.

And, yes, they should all be able to marry the single unrelated adult of their choice.

Choice is the key, isn't it?

In spouses and in clothes.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196156 Jun 15, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I'm not a feminist wacko, why don't you ask one yourself. I hear many of them like to use strap-ons. I encourage you to use Google if you need any more information.
Had a g.f. once the little freak pulled a strap-on out of her drawer and wanted to deploy it on me! I *hightailed it the hell out of there fast I gotta tell you.

*Puns always intended.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196157 Jun 15, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are a few other words that you and your wife can call your "unique" relationship...
Jealous Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who are jealous that homosexuals also get to use the term "marriage".
Selfish Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who are too selfish to share the word "marriage".
Insecure Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who are too insecure with their own marriage, so they must forbid all others from having access to the word.
Meddlesome Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who believe that they know what's best for all other couples--meddling into other people's private lives.
Projection Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who have a rocky foundation. So they project their fears, concerns, and conflicts onto external issues, such as same-sex marriage; hoping that it will divert attention away from what it really the problem in their own marriage.
Sad Marriage--a marriage between heterosexuals who have nothing better to do with their time other than to attack other people's relationships. This makes them a very sad and kind of pathetic couple.
Whiny Marriage--a marriage between heterosexuals who LOVE to whine about gay people getting married. Friends, relatives, and co-workers of couples in a Whine Marriage" do a lot of eye-rolling, fake yawning, and lip-biting. They often stare at the clock and think to themselves, "When are they going to leave?!?"
----------
Gee, this is a lot more fun than I thought it would be!
Gosh, 36 years married, two sons, over ten foster kids, most restored to their birth parents. We didn't have time to think about an impostor relationship trying to impose on marriage and family...

It seems you have no idea about what marriage means...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196158 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, you seem very anal about all this.
Analize this with me.
I'm trying to protect gays from a serious medical condition.
BUTT you on the other hand, apparently want to leave those with sexual defects bareassed vulnerable.
It appears to me, you should be emBARRASSED about this foolishness.
There are safe ways of having anal sex. Even a BUTT-insky such as yourself should know about them.

HIV/AIDS can be prevented with the use of condoms.

HPV can be prevented through knowing ones status (about 20,000,000 adults between the ages of 18-49 have the disorder), through the use of condoms and/or vaccination.

Most people who get HPV will never have symptoms. Their body can eradicate the disease on its own.

Kids, teens, and others who have never been sexually active can get vaccinated to prevent HPV.

The American Cancer Society estimates about 1,570 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with cancer of the penis in 2012. About 2,250 men are estimated to have receive a diagnosis of anal cancer in 2012 as well.

The risk of cancer in gay/bisexual men is about 17 times higher. Multiply 1570 by 17 and you get 26,690. Multiply 2250 by 17 and you get 38,250.

Survival rates for penile cancer is about 85% depending on the stage of the cancer at the time of diagnosis. Survival rates for anal cancer is about 71%, depending on the stage of the cancer at the time of diagnosis.

These numbers are hardly indicative of a plague when you consider that there are several million sexually active gay/bisexual men in the nation. Women aren't warned to abstain from vaginal intercourse even though that is the primary method of HPV transmission. So why should gay men be warned to abstain from intercourse?

As I said, there are safe ways to have intercourse.

Now that I have helped to educate you and others, you can stop your ASS-inine scare tactics and get back to what you do best; which is to spend an inordinate amount of time obsASSing about what gay men do in their bedrooms.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196160 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The media and the same-sex marriage lobby tend to conveniently ignore the fact that many people with same-sex attraction oppose redefining marriage. This is because it completely undermines the general branding of defenders of traditional marriage as “homophobic bigots.”
Tom Geoghegan from BBC News has a very interesting article on his interviews with a range of people with same-sex attraction who nevertheless oppose redefining marriage. The reasons given are varied, but the telling factor is that they realise what the debate is about: the issue is not same-sex couples; the issue is marriage: what it is, and what its purpose is.
"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."
Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.
But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.
"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/1...
While there are those gays and lesbians who do not want to see same-sex marriage legalized, I'm certain that most of them believe that the gay and lesbian couples who DO want access to marriage SHOULD have the CHOICE available to enter into a marriage.

This issue is about a couple having the RIGHT to make a decision to marry based on their own personal beliefs and values.

Regarding what opponents of same-sex marriage "think", I have these sage words... Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one and most of them stink.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196163 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The media and the same-sex marriage lobby tend to conveniently ignore the fact that many people with same-sex attraction oppose redefining marriage. This is because it completely undermines the general branding of defenders of traditional marriage as “homophobic bigots.”
Feel free to cite a study or poll. I doubt you would find "many" who disagree. Particularly seeing as public support has been consistently increasing.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Pietro Armando wrote:
Tom Geoghegan from BBC News has a very interesting article on his interviews with a range of people with same-sex attraction who nevertheless oppose redefining marriage. The reasons given are varied, but the telling factor is that they realise what the debate is about: the issue is not same-sex couples; the issue is marriage: what it is, and what its purpose is.
"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."
Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.
But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.
"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/1...
Of course it continues:

"Until the federal government recognises and codifies the same rights for same-sex couples as straight ones, equality is the goal so why get hung up on a word, he asks.
"I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance," adds Soroff, columnist for the Improper Boston.
"I've been to some lovely gay weddings but aping the traditional heterosexual wedding is weird and I don't understand why anyone wants to do that.
"I'm not saying that people who want that shouldn't have it but for me, all that matters is the legal stuff.""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434

So, in reality, you have found one person with a potential objection to the wording, but not to equal protection of the law.

Do you read the articles that you post to the end, or even the middle for that matter?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196166 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
OK then which of the following religions shall we base the new law on?
Mormonism
Buddhisim
Hinduism
Wiccan
Druid
Catholicism
FSM
Remember we cant force the beliefe of one religion on the others.
Fundamentalist polygamists have a substantial first amendment right to marry multiple wives according to the dictates of their faith.

Atheist polygamists have a right to marry just like atheist homosexuals do. Glad you don't like it hypocrite, but it won't hurt you or your silly passionless straight marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196167 Jun 15, 2013
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.)

Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196168 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Burning Bush can be helped with cream.
You sound like a lady of experience.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196169 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Whack Job Bible totin Fundies are the base of your assbackwards party. Give it up moron, its 2013.
Spoken like a person of tolerance and diversity.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196170 Jun 15, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
None of them are, actually. Every last one of them are sloganeers, script readers, drones, losers, dying to get out there and destroy Society.
Jerky knees too. Quick knee jerk reaction to any post.

This "Zoro" clown is a true dummy.

"Zoro" is his sock puppet of the day, he gets embarrassed then comes back with another. If you call him on it he lies.

He's a real sillyass piece of work from Cheese-head country.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#196171 Jun 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Fundamentalist polygamists have a substantial first amendment right to marry multiple wives according to the dictates of their faith.
Atheist polygamists have a right to marry just like atheist homosexuals do. Glad you don't like it hypocrite, but it won't hurt you or your silly passionless straight marriage.
do fundamentalist polygamists have a substantial first amendment right to marry multiple husbands according to the dictates of their faith?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196174 Jun 15, 2013
I bet Jizzy meant to name his new sock "Zorro" but misspelled it.

What a dope! I like him! That's why I frequent the gay threads.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196175 Jun 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
do fundamentalist polygamists have a substantial first amendment right to marry multiple husbands according to the dictates of their faith?
Yes. Even same sex atheists! Like three hot young twinks as long as they're consenting adults! Hubba Hubba! Bet you like equality for them even if you don't like it for people you hate.

But keep your lurid sexual fantasies out of this. We're trying to talk marriage equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196184 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>No dippy. WE DO NOT base our laws on religious doctrine.
I'm asking to bse laws on their religion. I'm asking to allow them the free exercise of their religion like the 1st amendment says.

I'm also asking to give power rangers, spice boys and clam divers the right to marry the partner(s) of their choice. It's the 21st century Jizzy! Damn boy! Oh snap! Cool beans.

And no, before you get a brilliant inspiration, no one wants to marry a goat or a tree. Nor should they be able to. Animals and trees cannot enter into contracts, it's absurd.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196185 Jun 15, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a time when religious folk shouted "sinner" and "heathen" and "Repent!"
Now it's "homophobe" and "bigot" and "racist" (?!?) and all kinds of things to make you "see the light" and come out of the "darkness" or "dark ages".
Their bible is a script. "homophobe" is an invented word aimed at tweens who mimic anything and everything in order to "fit in".
How am I doing so far, Fundie Polyp-wrangler?
*snicker*
Zoro's religion (atheism) requires as much or more faith as any other religion. And Zoro is one of it most fundie adherents.

The jackass thinks he's real cute and worships the flying bowl of spaghetti. ha ha.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#196186 Jun 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm asking to bse laws on their religion. I'm asking to allow them the free exercise of their religion like the 1st amendment says.
I'm also asking to give power rangers, spice boys and clam divers the right to marry the partner(s) of their choice. It's the 21st century Jizzy! Damn boy! Oh snap! Cool beans.
And no, before you get a brilliant inspiration, no one wants to marry a goat or a tree. Nor should they be able to. Animals and trees cannot enter into contracts, it's absurd.
*First sentence should read: I'm NOT asking to base laws on their religion.

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) Dec 2 Ron 151
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
News Sunnyvale considers expanding smoking ban to mu... (Sep '15) Nov 19 Haha 30

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages