Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 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

Union City, CA

#197066 Jun 21, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Liar, you have never seen me.
That's what I picture you look like in my mind because you act just like a guy who looks like that would act.

He looks very happy. But you're not happy, so yeah maybe it's not you.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#197068 Jun 21, 2013
mipalo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Rizzo whats the biggest cock you've ever had in your butt?
LMAO ... His dads, no! wait a minute frankie takes after his dad, so it must be his moms strap-on. lol ... hahaha
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197069 Jun 21, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical gay response. I gave you a perfectly good and accurate explanation. If you are too dumb to see it then FK U.
Wow! That'll get him.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197070 Jun 21, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU FRANKIE you feltching finochio
Third class moron says what?
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#197072 Jun 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! That'll get him.
STFU you finoch, go see my next response concerning you
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#197073 Jun 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Third class moron says what?
What's the problem? can't comprehend you dumb azzz

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#197074 Jun 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go with your 'confusion' excuse again...
First you could make no sense of the essence I'd marriage, then it was an 'opinion', then a 'term paper', and now it's a 'theory'. Just like evolution, right?
As to essence, that is exactly how I used it to prove SS couples do not equate to marriage. You are the one who portrayed it as exclusionary to other elements I'd marriage.
But here is still the bottom line : The basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Clearly not equal to marriage.
Again, I must ask, Are you drunk? What does "I'd marriage" mean? You use it twice. Makes no sense grammatically or otherwise.

The bottom line is that if you believe that the basic essence of (the most important part of) marriage is a cross cultural constraint (on the father) on evolutionary mating behavior, then your wife has my condolences.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people would not define their marriage in this manner.

And since mating behavior isn't always the primary drive for people to marry (based on the fact that many people do not or cannot have children), then same-sex couples are no more of a failure than those couples who do not procreate.

In large, we're not marrying to have children. We're simply legalizing the long-term relationship that we choose to be in--as most couples do.

Bottom line--your opinion is worth nothing to us. If you don't like gay marriage, too bad. It's happening throughout the country and around the world. And eventually, it'll come to your neck of the woods as well.

Virus Watch

UK

#197075 Jun 21, 2013
blight on Society wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottom line--your opinion is worth nothing to us.
Are you telling us something we don't already know, Caligula?
Anonymous

San Bernardino, CA

#197076 Jun 21, 2013
"GOOD FOR THOSE who find love, NO MATTER what their sexual orientation!!"
phaines

Big Bear Lake, CA

#197077 Jun 21, 2013
Virus Watch wrote:
Warning!
A Tiny URL can lead anywhere. Never click on one.
I never do,especially here ...:)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197078 Jun 21, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the problem? can't comprehend you dumb azzz
I don't know what your problem is and I don't much care.

Probably it's just that you're stupid, so don't worry about it fruitcake. You can't fix that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197079 Jun 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
...Bottom line--your opinion is worth nothing to us....
Likewise.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#197082 Jun 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
The bottom line is that if you believe that the basic essence of (the most important part of) marriage is a cross cultural constraint (on the father) on evolutionary mating behavior, then your wife has my condolences.
Big Red

Or to put it another way, marriage developed as a means of dealing with the product of the male female sexual union, off spring. Remove that element, and would marriage exist, as a distinct, recognized by society, relationship?
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people would not define their marriage in this manner.
The vast majority haven't thought that deep on the matter.
And since mating behavior isn't always the primary drive for people to marry (based on the fact that many people do not or cannot have children),
Why people marry should not be confused with why marriage exists.
then same-sex couples are no more of a failure than those couples who do not procreate.
SSCs differ in form and function.
In large, we're not marrying to have children. We're simply legalizing the long-term relationship that we choose to be in--as most couples do.
Perhaps, but the risk of pregnancy is not an issue for ANY SSC. Even if an OSC doesn't "plan" on having children. They sometimes do anyway. "Two go to bed, but three get up".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#197087 Jun 21, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is an official bonding.
.....of husband and wife. Very good. U get a gold star.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#197088 Jun 21, 2013
Frankie, do you swallow? a simple yes or no will do Oh is it Frankie because you are a little boy bitch or are you a female?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#197089 Jun 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go with your 'confusion' excuse again...
First you could make no sense of the essence I'd marriage, then it was an 'opinion', then a 'term paper', and now it's a 'theory'. Just like evolution, right?
As to essence, that is exactly how I used it to prove SS couples do not equate to marriage. You are the one who portrayed it as exclusionary to other elements I'd marriage.
But here is still the bottom line : The basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Clearly not equal to marriage.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I must ask, Are you drunk? What does "I'd marriage" mean? You use it twice. Makes no sense grammatically or otherwise.
The bottom line is that if you believe that the basic essence of (the most important part of) marriage is a cross cultural constraint (on the father) on evolutionary mating behavior, then your wife has my condolences.
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people would not define their marriage in this manner.
And since mating behavior isn't always the primary drive for people to marry (based on the fact that many people do not or cannot have children), then same-sex couples are no more of a failure than those couples who do not procreate.
In large, we're not marrying to have children. We're simply legalizing the long-term relationship that we choose to be in--as most couples do.
Bottom line--your opinion is worth nothing to us. If you don't like gay marriage, too bad. It's happening throughout the country and around the world. And eventually, it'll come to your neck of the woods as well.
Now you are confused about an i-phone spell checker flub (replace 'I'd' with 'of'), but not enough to not respond. Interesting. This while you ignore the slimy gay twirl slide you continue.

I always get a kick out of a ss couple who will NEVER procreate telling married people about the validity of kids. But laying that aside, 96% of married couples do have children. Those who are unable would if they could. That leaves a fraction who choose not to have children. In very large, we ARE marrying to have children.

I'm not surprised when you reject the Bible to hold your denial, but when you really expose your ignorant bias when you reject science. I understand that for a gay, mating behavior is confusing, but again, you have no qualification to speak for a heterosexual couple. Especially in contradiction to science.

The bottom line, this isn't my opinion, it's simple science;

At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197090 Jun 21, 2013
Bruno wrote:
Frankie, do you swallow? a simple yes or no will do Oh is it Frankie because you are a little boy bitch or are you a female?
Another gay post by Bruno. I liked you better when you were straight.
Stingers

Monrovia, CA

#197092 Jun 21, 2013
Public and private partners were putting up bee-proof netting to prevent more bees from dying.

The pesticide was reportedly applied to the trees on June 15, 2013 to control aphids.
Bowling pin

Monrovia, CA

#197108 Jun 21, 2013
Yep another worthless posting.
Slags

Monrovia, CA

#197114 Jun 21, 2013
It's to bad the entire city council didn't listen to those who pointed out the warning signs of financial failures of Josh Betta and the entire city council and city hall staff.

It makes me sick to see the City of Glendora, California promise money to the tune of $1 million dollars and not help these families ,shame on you;

Chris Jeffers

D. Wayne Leech

Jeff Kugel

Dave Davies

Joseph Santoro

Judy Nelson

Gene Murabito

Karen Davis

Douglas Tessitor

New Finance director (2013)

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
topix forum misused (May '09) Fri Billy Rawhide 2
massive chinese furniture web-site and relative... Aug 27 jimheeren 1
News Advances Against Chronic Pain (Sep '12) Aug 26 Ambct617 20
News What's Vanessa Diffenbaugh reading? Aug 19 moodylarry 1
RIP Chuck (Charles Perry lll) (Feb '12) Aug 18 D Shot 24
gutter cleaning Aug 16 randall1022 1
Is There A Police Helicopter Flying Around?? (Aug '08) Aug 13 Duque_dolores 56
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages