Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201810 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.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#198790 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't bring up 'acceptance' or 'opinion'.
I simply point out obvious fundamental differences between ss couples and marriage.
There is nothing hateful about stating facts. If they were not the facts, you would point that out instead of making the 'hate' charge.
So obvious.
More than anything I've seen over the past week, I would have LOVED to have seen your face with the Supreme Court decisions were handed down.

I'll bet it was priceless!

All of your personal attempts to sway folks. Your ridiculous and contrived definitions; your pitiful understanding of scientific processes; your absolute refusal to agree with facts... In one fell swoop, the justices handed you (and people like you) your ass on a platter.

To quote Glinda the Good Witch of the North, "You have no power here! Be gone! Before somebody drops a house on you!"

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#198791 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote: You noted, as I do, that ss couples are a duplicated gendered half of marriage. Interracial marriage has been prevalent across human history with brief points of conflict. Ss couples being called married has never been accepted across the history of a single culture. Moreover, race differences don't affect the essence of mating behavior. SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. I admitted no such thing. I simply quoted the SCOTUS assertion, and mocked it.
Read more at http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, many things have been prevalent throughout history. Take slavery... Take war... Take gender inequality... Take racial and ethnic discrimination... Take genocide...
Do you also embrace these "timeless", social institutions and activities?
As I've often said, rather than simply doing the same thing over and over, we learn from the mistakes in the past to make our current society a better place.
Get on board or get out of the way.
An idiotic, obvious and poor attempt to distort what I said, while ignoring all the points.

Clearly no rational response to the argument.

Get real.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#198792 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: You noted, as I do, that ss couples are a duplicated gendered half of marriage. Interracial marriage has been prevalent across human history with brief points of conflict. Ss couples being called married has never been accepted across the history of a single culture.
How long have you been an imbecile?

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-m...
www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
http://www.geni.com/projects/History-of-Same-...

Dullard.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#198793 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: You noted, as I do, that ss couples are a duplicated gendered half of marriage. Interracial marriage has been prevalent across human history with brief points of conflict. Ss couples being called married has never been accepted across the history of a single culture. Moreover, race differences don't affect the essence of mating behavior. SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. I admitted no such thing. I simply quoted the SCOTUS assertion, and mocked it.
Read more at http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...
<quoted text>
An idiotic, obvious and poor attempt to distort what I said, while ignoring all the points.
Clearly no rational response to the argument.
Get real.
No... It's not an idiotic response. It's a perfectly reasonable observation.

If you believe that current marriage laws should be dictated by history, then maybe you think that other institutions and behaviors should also be supported by their almost constant presence in history.

You just don't agree with them because you realize how absurd it would be for you to try to support slavery, war, genocide, gender inequality, racial and ethnic inequality, etc.

But marriage inequality, you're willing to support that based on the history of marriage--even though you KNOW that marriage has never been the same in all cultures throughout history. Arranged marriage, plural marriage, same-gender marriage, interracial marriage, "ghost marriage", etc. are just a few of the many faces of marriage over the history of mankind.

It doesn't matter. Our Supreme Court Justices, having had all the facts argued before them by the best attorneys and legal teams in the country, came to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional to deny federal rights and protections to a married couple who happen to be comprised of same-gender individuals. They found it unconstitutional to deny benefits and protections to married, same-gender couples who have children.

And there you have it... The law is clearly on our side here. It's probably getting close to closing time around here on this particular thread.

The decision has been made. Your team lost. We were triumphant. The definition of marriage (of which there are many) now includes same-gender couples.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#198794 Jun 29, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I currently don't have one. And if I did, it would need to be a meaningful relationship that we both wanted to become a life long commitment. I hope that answers your question, Rickie.
Yes, like all your comments, they speak for themselves, you clearly are lost.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#198795 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny!
It's a typical answer for most gays, it's all about the sex, not a commitment. Most gays don't want to marry, they just want the opportunity.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#198796 Jun 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, many things have been prevalent throughout history. Take slavery... Take war... Take gender inequality... Take racial and ethnic discrimination... Take genocide...
Do you also embrace these "timeless", social institutions and activities?
As I've often said, rather than simply doing the same thing over and over, we learn from the mistakes in the past to make our current society a better place.
Get on board or get out of the way.
So you're comparing the institution of marriage, the union of husband and wife, to those things?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#198797 Jun 29, 2013
lides wrote:
John Boswell's work? It's controversial and has sparked considerable credible criticism and refutation.
Big D

Ashburn, VA

#198799 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't bring up 'acceptance' or 'opinion'.
I simply point out obvious fundamental differences between ss couples and marriage.
There is nothing hateful about stating facts. If they were not the facts, you would point that out instead of making the 'hate' charge.
So obvious.
The fundamental difference is love and respect vs hate and contempt
PaperHangers

Monrovia, CA

#198800 Jun 29, 2013
This place looks like the gold metal winners, one armed one leg paper hanging contest winners house.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198801 Jun 29, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
** TROLL ALERT **
Yeah we know you're a troll, fool. No need for the alert.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198802 Jun 29, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
...he said, squawking like a parrot just repeating something someone else already said. Go to bed Frankie.
He said, idiotically.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198803 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't bring up 'acceptance' or 'opinion'.
I simply point out obvious fundamental differences between ss couples and marriage.
There is nothing hateful about stating facts. If they were not the facts, you would point that out instead of making the 'hate' charge.
So obvious.
Facts that Big D doesn't like are "hateful" you see.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198804 Jun 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, many things have been prevalent throughout history. Take slavery... Take war... Take gender inequality... Take racial and ethnic discrimination... Take genocide...
Do you also embrace these "timeless", social institutions and activities?
As I've often said, rather than simply doing the same thing over and over, we learn from the mistakes in the past to make our current society a better place.
Get on board or get out of the way.
Marriage is a mistake from the past? Then why do you want in on it?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#198805 Jun 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
John Boswell's work? It's controversial and has sparked considerable credible criticism and refutation.
It doesn't change the reality that throughout history there have been societies that allowed same sex marriage.

You ignorantly claimed that:
"Ss couples being called married has never been accepted across the history of a single culture."
An assertion, which is simply untrue.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198806 Jun 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
More than anything I've seen over the past week, I would have LOVED to have seen your face with the Supreme Court decisions were handed down.
I'll bet it was priceless!
All of your personal attempts to sway folks. Your ridiculous and contrived definitions; your pitiful understanding of scientific processes; your absolute refusal to agree with facts... In one fell swoop, the justices handed you (and people like you) your ass on a platter.
To quote Glinda the Good Witch of the North, "You have no power here! Be gone! Before somebody drops a house on you!"
I'd think the victory for equality would be "more than anything" what you liked, it is very telling that you'd like to rub detractors faces in it more than the victory itself.

You have just insisted on a tremendous social change and gotten it. Some people are wary of the change. Go easy on them. They are your fellow citizens, they'll come around, and sooner without you taunting and attempting to marginalize them. That just naturally makes them dig in and resist.

A great victory has just been won, have some class and be gracious about it.
Clams

Monrovia, CA

#198807 Jun 29, 2013
Pay no never mind to the liquored up fool who posted before this one.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198808 Jun 29, 2013
lides wrote:
Not as long as you probably.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#198809 Jun 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No... It's not an idiotic response. It's a perfectly reasonable observation.
If you believe that current marriage laws should be dictated by history, then maybe you think that other institutions and behaviors should also be supported by their almost constant presence in history.
You just don't agree with them because you realize how absurd it would be for you to try to support slavery, war, genocide, gender inequality, racial and ethnic inequality, etc.
But marriage inequality, you're willing to support that based on the history of marriage--even though you KNOW that marriage has never been the same in all cultures throughout history. Arranged marriage, plural marriage, same-gender marriage, interracial marriage, "ghost marriage", etc. are just a few of the many faces of marriage over the history of mankind.
It doesn't matter. Our Supreme Court Justices, having had all the facts argued before them by the best attorneys and legal teams in the country, came to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional to deny federal rights and protections to a married couple who happen to be comprised of same-gender individuals. They found it unconstitutional to deny benefits and protections to married, same-gender couples who have children.
And there you have it... The law is clearly on our side here. It's probably getting close to closing time around here on this particular thread.
The decision has been made. Your team lost. We were triumphant. The definition of marriage (of which there are many) now includes same-gender couples.
I'm curious.

Since the SCOTUS ruling equating ss couples with marriage, does that mean duplicate gendered couples will change to diverse gendered couples, or the other way around?

Will ss couples start mutually bearing children? I can't wait to see the change!

Oh, and when will a gay anus turn into a vagina?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#198810 Jun 29, 2013
lides wrote:
Been over that gay twirl BS many times.

I'm curious.

Since the SCOTUS ruling equating ss couples with marriage, does that mean duplicate gendered couples will change to diverse gendered couples, or the other way around?

Will ss couples start mutually bearing children? I can't wait to see the change!

Oh, and when will a gay anus turn into a vagina?

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
anyone into kinky taboo fantasy? 1 hr tester 5
Police action Thursday May 21 Alameda/Brittan 8... Sun Deb Mangels 1
Police action near Monta Vista on 05/23/2015 Sun Bart 1
News Palo Alto: Committee balks at restricting smoki... May 14 Ban Tobacco 2
News Surenos gang member gets new trial date (Aug '08) May 4 microadsl 284
You can win an awesome new GenZe Electric Scoot... (Sep '14) May 1 dfd 2
News Council approves tentative minimum-wage plan Apr 26 Hmm 2
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]