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.

Vanished

Covina, CA

#196655 Jun 18, 2013
Non has appeared any better.
kookaa

Long Beach, CA

#196656 Jun 18, 2013
THIS IS NOT A CHAT ROOM. It is a message board for posting comments on the original article, which is from 2010 in case you didn't notice.

GROW UP PEOPLE. Move on with your lives now and let others live their lives as they see fit. It's not that complicated. Peace!:)
Spread outs

Covina, CA

#196659 Jun 18, 2013
Paul Mannina, the U.S. Department of Labor attorney charged in a home invasion, was found dead in a D.C. jail cell of an apparent suicide Tuesday, reported NBC4's Mark Segraves.

Mannina, 58, was arrested last week in connection with a violent home invasion at the residence of one of his coworkers.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#196662 Jun 18, 2013
kookaa wrote:
THIS IS NOT A CHAT ROOM. It is a message board for posting comments on the original article, which is from 2010 in case you didn't notice.
GROW UP PEOPLE. Move on with your lives now and let others live their lives as they see fit. It's not that complicated. Peace!:)
OFF TOPIC! This is not a room. This Internet Forum is for posting comments. Have you read all the comments to say for certain those being posted are not related to earlier comments? Do you go to each topic and check to see if all the comments are right on with the subject? Grow up, you don't have to make any comment here, did you notice that your comment is off topic?
zoom

Long Beach, CA

#196663 Jun 18, 2013
kookaa wrote:
THIS IS NOT A CHAT ROOM. It is a message board for posting comments on the original article, which is from 2010 in case you didn't notice.
GROW UP PEOPLE. Move on with your lives now and let others live their lives as they see fit. It's not that complicated. Peace!:)
You are sooooo right! They sound like total idiots.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#196666 Jun 18, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text> On the books, as were laws preventing SSM, created by the same people. You have chosen to take the side that these laws were not fair (when your pets were denied rights), but yet valid as hell (when your ignored brothers and sisters were denied), which makes you seem Quixotic.
Rocky baby......remember to play nice:-)
Spread outs

Covina, CA

#196667 Jun 18, 2013
tri-calcium orthophosphate
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196670 Jun 18, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Very GOOD!
(It's best to put your link at the top, to show people up front that what's coming next aren't your words, but you did good).
I gave hell to somebody about doing something a certain way, then give them credit for making it right, and get the negative smilies from the usual bedwetter.

There's no pleasing the homosexuals. They're irresponsible and mentally unstable. Only the Common Man wants them in their neighborhood.
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196671 Jun 18, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
But remember, boys and girls, "they're just like you and me".
Do what? I repeated one of the Fundamentalist Doctrines and they show their thanks with more negative smilies?

Such ungrateful little snots.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196672 Jun 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare'a wrote;
Dumb and dumber.
I rarely address the religious basis for marriage.
I kind of enjoy the hissy fit when I point out the social science basis;
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
No violation of freedom, no religion. Just a clear distinction between the two relationships.
Now, watch the pink brigade show up.
Smile.
<quoted text>
So you deduced I got my evolutionary proof from the Bible?
AND, there is money there? Damn, I'll split it with you if you help me find it!
What other conspiracy theories do you follow???
Oh you can find nut jobs that think anything from an evolutionary standpoint, Hitler for example, but the money is coming from the religious.

People that actually know something about evolution know better than what you have been saying., You are stretching to find a reason to not support it.

No animals other than man marry, there are some that are monogamous ( generally not man )but they don’t have a legal marriage ceremony, so that kind of tosses all your arguments out the window from a marriage perspective.

As far as homosexuality is concerned there are dozens of documented species that include homosexuality, so that tosses out the whole natural argument.
the Mark Spitz Dancers

Luton, UK

#196674 Jun 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No animals other than man marry, there are some that are monogamous ( generally not man )but they don’t have a legal marriage ceremony, so that kind of tosses all your arguments out the window from a marriage perspective.
A ceremony is a ritual, and animals are VERY ritualistic, very ceremonious in their own fashion (their dances and their waggles and their songs) and since homosexuals are mostly regressive animals...

So what was your point again?

I get the feeling that you're stuttering and stammering as you write. You don't really believe what you're saying, do you?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196675 Jun 19, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
You're putting the cart before the horse. The whole issues has been systematically attacked, starting with the removal of children as the primary impetus of marriage. Having removed this inconvenient validation for coupling, you are having a happy time stating that my assertion is "down the tubes".
Can infertile heterosexual couples marry? If so, then your assertion is down the tubes.
Rock Hudson wrote:
Stating that "that the state does not have an interest in a child being raised by two biological parents" is another step towards the new and draconian measure of taking our children away, and letting the state take control of them.
No it is not. The state doesn’t take children born out of wedlock, and it allows divorce in cases where children are in the picture. Only a moron would imply that there is a state interest in children being raised by two biological parents. How does it feel to be utterly out of touch with reality?
Rock Hudson wrote:
The Nazi ideal realized.
Actually, you are the one advocating that the state not provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws counter to the US Constitution. It’s ironic that you then accuse someone else of fascism. One wonders if you actually have any understanding of what you have implied?
Rock Hudson wrote:
Again, you assert that the rights sought by the polygamists are greater than others are asking for, but this is a lie.
No, if one can count, they can see that the protections sought is greater.
Rock Hudson wrote:
The actual number of rights are identical, the number of claimants is greater.
Do you see how you just employed the word greater? Yeah, that is how you just disproved your own argument. Congratulations, you aren’t to terribly bright.
Rock Hudson wrote:
This is because 3 is greater than 2. Simple mathematics.
This is why you have disproven your own argument. I think your ignorance is hysterical.
Rock Hudson wrote:
On the books, as were laws preventing SSM, created by the same people.
The difference is outlawing bigamy can be justified because it seeks greater protection, which you yourself have admitted in your inept attempt to justify polygamy, while outlawing same sex marriage serves no compelling state interest.
Rock Hudson wrote:
You have chosen to take the side that these laws were not fair (when your pets were denied rights),
WTF are you talking about?
Rock Hudson wrote:
but yet valid as hell (when your ignored brothers and sisters were denied), which makes you seem Quixotic.
Earth to moron, there is a compelling state interest served by denying siblings the right to marry.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196676 Jun 19, 2013
the Mark Spitz Dancers wrote:
<quoted text>
A ceremony is a ritual, and animals are VERY ritualistic, very ceremonious in their own fashion (their dances and their waggles and their songs) and since homosexuals are mostly regressive animals...
So what was your point again?
I get the feeling that you're stuttering and stammering as you write. You don't really believe what you're saying, do you?
Those are mating dances, happens homosexually in animals too, thank you for making my point :)

Not at all, I actually know what I am talking about
F gate

Covina, CA

#196677 Jun 19, 2013
Another B.S. flood gate has been left opened.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196678 Jun 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh you can find nut jobs that think anything from an evolutionary standpoint, Hitler for example, but the money is coming from the religious.
People that actually know something about evolution know better than what you have been saying., You are stretching to find a reason to not support it.
No animals other than man marry, there are some that are monogamous ( generally not man )but they don’t have a legal marriage ceremony, so that kind of tosses all your arguments out the window from a marriage perspective.
As far as homosexuality is concerned there are dozens of documented species that include homosexuality, so that tosses out the whole natural argument.
A nut job is the person thinking religion is supporting evolution.

However, please be specific about how the essence of marriage is different from what I quoted from social science.

Marriage is a cultural constraint, animals do not equate regarding marriage.

Animals engage in same sex sexual behavior, very few actually practice homosexuality. However, if that justifies homosexuality, then dogs lick butts and eat shit. Just where do you want to go with this?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196680 Jun 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A nut job is the person thinking religion is supporting evolution.
However, please be specific about how the essence of marriage is different from what I quoted from social science.
Marriage is a cultural constraint, animals do not equate regarding marriage.
Animals engage in same sex sexual behavior, very few actually practice homosexuality. However, if that justifies homosexuality, then dogs lick butts and eat shit. Just where do you want to go with this?
I never said it was, I said it was supporting the fight against same sex marriage.

There is no place I have to go with anything, it is obvious that your conclusions about evolution are simply wrong.

The institution of marriage is a government contract, a legal contract, nothing more. What each person makes of their own marriage is a personal affair. No one needs your approval any more than you need my approval.

Marriage is not found in the history of the evolution of species at all, it is a human legal construct.
Ityss

Covina, CA

#196681 Jun 19, 2013
Ya got to love those Italians in Italy if they can't convict you in the first two (2) trials why not try to in a third (3).

Italian court: Amanda Knox must be retried

After Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito were convicted and then acquitted of murdering Meredith Kercher, the Italian court system will now re-try the case, saying more evidence should have been considered.
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196682 Jun 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text> However, if that justifies homosexuality, then dogs lick butts and eat shit. Just where do you want to go with this?
She's wanting a Tony Award!
Wino s

Covina, CA

#196684 Jun 19, 2013
Italian court: Amanda Knox must be retried

After Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaelle Sollecito were convicted and then acquitted of murdering Meredith Kercher, the Italian court system will now re-try the case, saying more evidence should have been considered.

Just like a bunch of Italian wino judges.
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#196686 Jun 19, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>So Frank do you think it was right of the voters in Cali. to out law same sex marriage, after the right had been granted to gays and lesbians? Personaly I think the Judge was correct in overturning the ban based on the US Constitution. I am sure that SCOTUS will back up the Judge and reinstate same sex marriage in California. What about you?
lol .. the gay cult has been saying this for years now, and it still hasn't happened. Californiea is the only state so far to stand strong even though it is host to the Gay Cult capitol of the nation, San Fransico. There must be a very good reason for this stand off!!! not even Rose Ho can figure this one out ... lol

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