Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201808 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.

Mikey

Glendale, CA

#199199 Jun 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is starving, its just that some prefer sausage instead of clams, or vice versa.
Is this the only registered Topix name you have left Frankie?
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#199200 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw Jizzy, just try to relax. It's pride day! A day to celebrate!
Be proud. The party is ON here in the SF area. WOO~HOOO! I will definitely be lifting a few glasses to equality. You should too sourpuss.
Liar

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199204 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You just did in this post. You failed to distinguish between those who cannot because of a medical condition or choice, and a couple who is absolutely and totally incapable because of gender discrimination.
Moreover, I wasn't arguing law. I simply and accurately noted a major distinction between ss couples and marriage. You STILL can't change that reality, no matter how much you twirl.
2. People engage in numerous harmful behaviors, as distinguished from risky behaviors. Medical experts deem anal sex as 'the most dangerous form of sex'. A violation of the purpose and design of the anus. There is NO justification for anal violence. That is why it was illegal and still is in many places.
3. Even more silly stupid.
First, you clearly have no understanding of mating behavior's effects.
Second, where do you get that procreation can only be natural if the only reason for sex is for that purpose???
Third, the absurdity extreme of one child (how did twins happen) per sexual act.
Finally, you again just tried to argue that procreation is not natural.
4. You close with an ad homoan troll attack. If you had a logical, sensible argument, that would not be necessary.
1.) Who cares? Why compare the two in the first place? Never really understood why we continue to go down the road of offspring and mating.
It has nothing to do with legal marriage, whether the couples are male/female, male/male, or female/female.
Legal marriage is a contract between two people who tie their lives together through a legal process. Once completed, the legal contract provides the couple a set of privileges, protections, and benefits that supports the day-to-day needs of the couple.
IF the couple decides to have children via procreation or adoption, the marriage provides certain protections to them as well.
But as we have all agreed, marriage licenses are not granted based on the prerequisite that a couple will have offspring. Therefore, any discussion of children with regards to the legally binding contract between two adults (i.e. marriage) is pointless.

2.) People smoke cigarettes, they eat highly processed and fatty foods, they don't get enough exercise, they drive too fast, they play the stock market, etc... I could go on and list thousands of high risk behaviors that humans engage in.
But we don't live in a totalitarian country. The state doesn't dictate every, single, solitary movement we make.
We are free to engage in whatever behaviors--within certain limits--that we choose.
If you don't like that kind of life, then move to a place where the government makes every decision for you.
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that gay men don't have to be told how to have homosexual intercourse? We just do what comes natural. There isn't a guidebook filled with instructions that we pass around to one another before having sex. We know what we like. We know what we want to do.
I think that's one of the strongest arguments to the normalcy and naturalness of gay male sex.
Who cares if you think anal sex is risky. That's your opinion. You choose to live a life in which you allegedly don't engage in it. More power to you.
Now keep your nose out of other people's asses.

3.) YOU seem to be the one who discounts sexual activity unless it's done for the purposes of procreation. You and your "mutually sterile, blah, blah, blah..."
I, on the other hand, believe a person can have sex for any number of reasons. That is why gay sex is no better or worse than straight sex, and vice-versa.
I only point out the absurdity of your constant comments that same-sex couples are inherently defective since we do not procreate.
We don't have sex to procreate.
Not every single sexual act that you've had with your wife was for the purposes of procreation.

4.) If you don't like my witty, sometimes catty comments, then don't respond to them. It takes two to carry on a conversation.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199205 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Who cares? Why compare the two in the first place? Never really understood why we continue to go down the road of offspring and mating.
It has nothing to do with legal marriage, whether the couples are male/female, male/male, or female/female.
Legal marriage is a contract between two people who tie their lives together through a legal process. Once completed, the legal contract provides the couple a set of privileges, protections, and benefits that supports the day-to-day needs of the couple.
IF the couple decides to have children via procreation or adoption, the marriage provides certain protections to them as well.
But as we have all agreed, marriage licenses are not granted based on the prerequisite that a couple will have offspring. Therefore, any discussion of children with regards to the legally binding contract between two adults (i.e. marriage) is pointless.
2.) People smoke cigarettes, they eat highly processed and fatty foods, they don't get enough exercise, they drive too fast, they play the stock market, etc... I could go on and list thousands of high risk behaviors that humans engage in.
But we don't live in a totalitarian country. The state doesn't dictate every, single, solitary movement we make.
We are free to engage in whatever behaviors--within certain limits--that we choose.
If you don't like that kind of life, then move to a place where the government makes every decision for you.
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that gay men don't have to be told how to have homosexual intercourse? We just do what comes natural. There isn't a guidebook filled with instructions that we pass around to one another before having sex. We know what we like. We know what we want to do.
I think that's one of the strongest arguments to the normalcy and naturalness of gay male sex.
Who cares if you think anal sex is risky. That's your opinion. You choose to live a life in which you allegedly don't engage in it. More power to you.
Now keep your nose out of other people's asses.
3.) YOU seem to be the one who discounts sexual activity unless it's done for the purposes of procreation. You and your "mutually sterile, blah, blah, blah..."
I, on the other hand, believe a person can have sex for any number of reasons. That is why gay sex is no better or worse than straight sex, and vice-versa.
I only point out the absurdity of your constant comments that same-sex couples are inherently defective since we do not procreate.
We don't have sex to procreate.
Not every single sexual act that you've had with your wife was for the purposes of procreation.
4.) If you don't like my witty, sometimes catty comments, then don't respond to them. It takes two to carry on a conversation.
Agreed on all counts. You go, VV!

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199206 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Who cares? Why compare the two in the first place? Never really understood why we continue to go down the road of offspring and mating.
It has nothing to do with legal marriage, whether the couples are male/female, male/male, or female/female.
Legal marriage is a contract between two people who tie their lives together through a legal process. Once completed, the legal contract provides the couple a set of privileges, protections, and benefits that supports the day-to-day needs of the couple.
IF the couple decides to have children via procreation or adoption, the marriage provides certain protections to them as well.
But as we have all agreed, marriage licenses are not granted based on the prerequisite that a couple will have offspring. Therefore, any discussion of children with regards to the legally binding contract between two adults (i.e. marriage) is pointless.
2.) People smoke cigarettes, they eat highly processed and fatty foods, they don't get enough exercise, they drive too fast, they play the stock market, etc... I could go on and list thousands of high risk behaviors that humans engage in.
But we don't live in a totalitarian country. The state doesn't dictate every, single, solitary movement we make.
We are free to engage in whatever behaviors--within certain limits--that we choose.
If you don't like that kind of life, then move to a place where the government makes every decision for you.
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that gay men don't have to be told how to have homosexual intercourse? We just do what comes natural. There isn't a guidebook filled with instructions that we pass around to one another before having sex. We know what we like. We know what we want to do.
I think that's one of the strongest arguments to the normalcy and naturalness of gay male sex.
Who cares if you think anal sex is risky. That's your opinion. You choose to live a life in which you allegedly don't engage in it. More power to you.
Now keep your nose out of other people's asses.
3.) YOU seem to be the one who discounts sexual activity unless it's done for the purposes of procreation. You and your "mutually sterile, blah, blah, blah..."
I, on the other hand, believe a person can have sex for any number of reasons. That is why gay sex is no better or worse than straight sex, and vice-versa.
I only point out the absurdity of your constant comments that same-sex couples are inherently defective since we do not procreate.
We don't have sex to procreate.
Not every single sexual act that you've had with your wife was for the purposes of procreation.
4.) If you don't like my witty, sometimes catty comments, then don't respond to them. It takes two to carry on a conversation.
Then stop preaching having your nose in the wrong places is natural.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199207 Jun 30, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed on all counts. You go, VV!
Figures that you too would think it's natural to have sex with the part where the Sh!t comes out. LOL

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199208 Jun 30, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL You calling anyone a bigot...Oh yea familiar little quip, unfortunately it doesn't work for Poly. You already have all the privileged rights of marriage, now you want more! That's problem with Poly, it's not about recognition and love, it's all about Greed.
Hey Bigot, why don't you stand on the pavement down there in hotland and melt your anger away? Are you forced to live there? LOL
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#199211 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too wordy.
What you really ment to say is that you don't have the attention span of a fly
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199212 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go. See, you stopped trolling and you're feeling much better already. Now just stop impersonating Ronald's dog. And getting mad at me.
Then maybe you'll start to gain some credibility and soon every one will forget you arrived as a jackass troll. But of course you'll still be a dope. Can't fix that.
You are still trolling. I am not. My demonstration of your behavior ended a while ago. Have a nice day Frankie.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#199213 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go. See, you stopped trolling and you're feeling much better already. Now just stop impersonating Ronald's dog. And getting mad at me.
Then maybe you'll start to gain some credibility and soon every one will forget you arrived as a jackass troll. But of course you'll still be a dope. Can't fix that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_ (Internet)

This article is about internet slang. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).
In Internet slang, a troll (/&#712;tro&#650;l/,/ &#712;tr&#594;l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people.[1]. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

Frankie, thats you in a nut shell
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#199217 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's incorrect. I said what I meant to say which was that VV's post was too wordy.
Glad it made you mad though!
Your limit seems to be 8 words. Like I said you have the attention span of a fly.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#199218 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
OK Jizzy. I'll match you- on topic pertinent posts, yours vs. mine. But the problem is you don't have any.
Right, you have not posted about the topic of this thread, ever.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199220 Jun 30, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Gawwwd everything you post is pure bull manure.
UN Projects 9.6 Billion People by 2050
Jun. 25, 2013 - The latest population projections issued by the United Nation earlier this month suggest that world population is on a faster growth path than previously projected. The UN now projects that world population will reach 7.2 billion next month, 9.6 billion by 2050 and 10.9 billion by 2100. That projection assumes, however, that access to family planning in developing countries will continue to expand and that fertility in the least developed countries will fall from 4.53 children per woman today to 2.87 by mid-century. Read More
When has the UN had anything honest or sensible to say? The idiot is you.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/futu...
world_population_may_actually_ start_declining_not_exploding. html

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#199221 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think they were wrong to base their decision in large on the 5th Amendment?
Please tell us all how they got it wrong.
And YAY! I can marry a dude! That's all we wanted and that's what we got.
We would have been happier if they had overturned DOMA altogether. That didn't happen. However, they have set a standard that's going to be awfully hard for states with DOMA written into their constitutions to maintain it.
Same-sex couples will go to apply for a marriage license. They will be denied. These couples will appeal any state's decision to try to enforce DOMA. They will go before a federal court. That's how states will be overturned--one by one.
I wasn't commenting on the DOMA decision. Damn you're ignorant.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199222 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Who cares? Why compare the two in the first place? Never really understood why we continue to go down the road of offspring and mating.
It has nothing to do with legal marriage, whether the couples are male/female, male/male, or female/female.
Legal marriage is a contract between two people who tie their lives together through a legal process. Once completed, the legal contract provides the couple a set of privileges, protections, and benefits that supports the day-to-day needs of the couple.
IF the couple decides to have children via procreation or adoption, the marriage provides certain protections to them as well.
But as we have all agreed, marriage licenses are not granted based on the prerequisite that a couple will have offspring. Therefore, any discussion of children with regards to the legally binding contract between two adults (i.e. marriage) is pointless.
2.) People smoke cigarettes, they eat highly processed and fatty foods, they don't get enough exercise, they drive too fast, they play the stock market, etc... I could go on and list thousands of high risk behaviors that humans engage in.
But we don't live in a totalitarian country. The state doesn't dictate every, single, solitary movement we make.
We are free to engage in whatever behaviors--within certain limits--that we choose.
If you don't like that kind of life, then move to a place where the government makes every decision for you.
By the way, has it ever occurred to you that gay men don't have to be told how to have homosexual intercourse? We just do what comes natural. There isn't a guidebook filled with instructions that we pass around to one another before having sex. We know what we like. We know what we want to do.
I think that's one of the strongest arguments to the normalcy and naturalness of gay male sex.
Who cares if you think anal sex is risky. That's your opinion. You choose to live a life in which you allegedly don't engage in it. More power to you.
Now keep your nose out of other people's asses.
3.) YOU seem to be the one who discounts sexual activity unless it's done for the purposes of procreation. You and your "mutually sterile, blah, blah, blah..."
I, on the other hand, believe a person can have sex for any number of reasons. That is why gay sex is no better or worse than straight sex, and vice-versa.
I only point out the absurdity of your constant comments that same-sex couples are inherently defective since we do not procreate.
We don't have sex to procreate.
Not every single sexual act that you've had with your wife was for the purposes of procreation.
4.) If you don't like my witty, sometimes catty comments, then don't respond to them. It takes two to carry on a conversation.
Which brings us back to the fact that 'ss marriage' is an oxymoron.

A ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.

Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

And you are full of sh/t and make ignorant, deceitful, idiotic statements and then lie about what you said.

And don't forget that the SCOTUS ruling has had not one single iota of effect on those facts.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199223 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Which brings us back to the fact that 'ss marriage' is an oxymoron.
A ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
And you are full of sh/t and make ignorant, deceitful, idiotic statements and then lie about what you said.
And don't forget that the SCOTUS ruling has had not one single iota of effect on those facts.
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#199224 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
When has the UN had anything honest or sensible to say? The idiot is you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/futu...
world_population_may_actually_ start_declining_not_exploding. html
Wrong again

How fast is the world's population growing?
The world's current growth rate is about 1.3%, representing a doubling time of 54 years. We can expect the world's population of approximately 6 billion to become 12 billion by 2054 if the current rate of growth continues. The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years.
For more information, visit my World Population and Population Geography categories of resources.

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzwo...
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#199228 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Which brings us back to the fact that 'ss marriage' is an oxymoron.
A ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
And you are full of sh/t and make ignorant, deceitful, idiotic statements and then lie about what you said.
And don't forget that the SCOTUS ruling has had not one single iota of effect on those facts.
You keep spewing the same crap
"Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning."
Look if you don't like anal sex stop having it
Look if you feel demeaned when you have anal sex stop having it.
If you don't like the way SCOTUS ruled, leave the country.
I have yet to read in any link that you have given, where a doctor says that anal sex is demeaning, inherently harmful or unhealthy.
As with any sexual encounter, precautions should be used.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-conc...
please do read the rest and stop being stupid

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199229 Jun 30, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong again
How fast is the world's population growing?
The world's current growth rate is about 1.3%, representing a doubling time of 54 years. We can expect the world's population of approximately 6 billion to become 12 billion by 2054 if the current rate of growth continues. The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years.
For more information, visit my World Population and Population Geography categories of resources.
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzwo...
So the UN said 9 billion by 2050, now this site is saying 12 billion.

Quite a difference, maybe you need to check the sources???

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199230 Jun 30, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep spewing the same crap
"Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning."
Look if you don't like anal sex stop having it
Look if you feel demeaned when you have anal sex stop having it.
If you don't like the way SCOTUS ruled, leave the country.
I have yet to read in any link that you have given, where a doctor says that anal sex is demeaning, inherently harmful or unhealthy.
As with any sexual encounter, precautions should be used.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-conc...
please do read the rest and stop being stupid
Embarrassed?

Simply pointing out that the SCOTUS decision didn't change the vast and numerous distinctions between ss couples and marriage.

Did it?

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? 12 hr tabuplay 3
News Billionaire Icahn Says Apple Is One of Best Buy... Wed Andarz Abedini 4
Earn as much as you can...no investments needed... May 18 angelsxy0010 1
Who Is Matthew Christopher? May 17 FredandBarneys 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
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]