Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,179

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.

Full Story

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?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#198811 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Not as long as you probably.
Frankie, congratulations. Way to hold up your standard of never being on topic or making a valid point.

The reality remains that existing same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, the US Supreme Court has handed those in support of equality a powerful tool in moving forward with legal challenges, and you still don't have the ability to articulate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law that would render such a restriction constitutional and begin to indicate that you are not an imbecile.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198812 Jun 29, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundamental difference is love and respect vs hate and contempt
That's your worst problem. Assuming your opinion is "love and respect" and disagreeing with your opinion is "hate and contempt".

And you really believe that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#198813 Jun 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, congratulations. Way to hold up your standard of never being on topic or making a valid point.
The reality remains that existing same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, the US Supreme Court has handed those in support of equality a powerful tool in moving forward with legal challenges, and you still don't have the ability to articulate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law that would render such a restriction constitutional and begin to indicate that you are not an imbecile.
I know fruitcake. Duh. Thinking I don't know that is just another example of your arrogance and stupidity.

You have still to convince me why marriage equality shouldn't extend to people you hate. Like polygamists and incestuous couples.

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... 8 hr Mover 31
Review: Calvary Chapel (Apr '09) 15 hr WhyWait 36
Police chase on Sunday early morning thru EPA 17 hr D mann 1
Police Blotter: Porch package snatcher arrested... Sun One way or another 5
Bill Widmer named new Rancho Palos Verdes city ... Sat Are you serious 1
Petition against unreasonable fingerprinting Fri BiometricAwareness 1
24 7 emergency locksmith (Dec '11) Dec 18 maryjaneprincton 19

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Palo Alto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palo Alto

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:20 pm PST

Bleacher Report 8:20PM
Upset over Bills a Building Block Win for Oakland
NBC Sports11:42 PM
Raiders knock Bills out of playoffs with 26-24 win - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report12:13 AM
49ers Role Players Get Opportunity to Shine
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Inside Bolts' Historic Comeback
NBC Sports 6:05 AM
Charles Woodson: Tony Sparano "made his case" to stick around