Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199329 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Naw, I'm just going to keep pointing out reality to your bogus legal ruling.
The ruling was bogus? Really? According to whom? You?!!! LOL!

The ruling stands. Not a damned thing you can do about it.

Smile!
KiMare wrote:
Sure annoys you for something you think is untrue...
You don't annoy us cur. You exemplify the reason we don't accept 2nd status handouts. It's because of the efforts of bigots like yourself that we smile as we continue our civil journey. Watching as you bitch and moan every time we advance is hilarious!!

It started with one country, now we have 15. It started with one state, now we have 13 and DC. And what do your ilk do? They piss and moan about how its not real!!!! They quote the losers!!! They try and intentionally agitate and sow discord. Know why? Cause they got NOTHING!!!

But you keep trying to convince yourself that you are annoying us!!! Your need for self importance is hilarious!!!
BTW, acknowledging that you think you are annoying us verifies the intent of your "stating facts". The intent is to sow discord. Your god HATES your behavior. Enjoy hell KiMMy!!

Smile!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199330 Jul 1, 2013
Earl wrote:
Question for all: I understand that The Supreme Court ruled Prop 8 illegal and struck down the law, but is there a state law giving gays the right to marry?
Same law that allows any other man and women to marry.
What I am saying is, there was no law giving gays the right to marry before prop 8 came along
Gays, had, and have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. No different than anyone else.
. Prop 8 was meant to block any future laws that tried to give gays the right to marry.The court struck down the ban (Prop 8)on gay marriage, but there is no state law giving gays the right to marry. So can some right wing group come along and again challenge the legalities of all these marriages? Do we need to force the politicians to finally get some guts and vote in a law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_22

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 to restrict marriages to only those between opposite-sex couples. In May 2008, it was struck down by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution.
The Act was proposed by means of the initiative process. It was authored by the state senator William "Pete" Knight and is known informally as the Knight initiative. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61% in favor to 39% against.[1] This large margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at only 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided.[2]
The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15, 2008 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry.[3] This 4–3 decision invalidated Proposition 22 and some related California laws.
Despite the brevity of Proposition 22 (it added only fourteen words to the Family Code) its effect provoked debate long after its passage. In November 2008 California voters overturned the In re Marriage Cases decision by approving an amendment of the state constitution called Proposition 8. On June 2010, Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional by U.S district judge Vaughn Walker based on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[4] On June 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry ruled that the Intervenor-Defendants had no Article III standing to appeal Walker's ruling, keeping Proposition 8 unforceable throughout California and enabling same-sex marriage to resume just two days after the decision.[5]

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".
I'm just worried that there might be a loophole and we should address this as soon as possible.
Worry about the consequences of redefining marriage for the next generation.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199331 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the state of Connecticut declare you, and your partner, "husband and wife"?
No you stupid moron, they declared us legally married. You see Pietro, with a marriage of same gender couples, there won't be both a "husband and wife". Anyone past the age of 9 would know this already. They also didn't declare us "right handed and left handed". They also didn't declare us "Caucasion and Hispanic". The only thing the state declared is that we are now legally married.

Are there any other completely ridiculous questions you'd like to ask dear, in order to continue showing off what a complete idiot you are?

Do let me know.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199332 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the state of Connecticut declare you, and your partner, "husband and wife"?
No dear, they didn't. Were they required to in order to declare us married?

Let me help you with the answer. It's "NO".

Carry on f*cktard!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199333 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What "function" are you referring to KiMMy? Is this "function" mandated? Or simply more of your pseudo psycho babble?!
Really Joh-née? Is biology mandated? Is conception mandated, or does it happen when men AND women have sex. You really should work on fretting your G.E.D. Let's keep this simple. Sex makes babies, even ones who grow up and post on Internet forum sites under the name "Jonah1". Human societies throughout history have understood this. Marriage developed as a means of regulating that. Are you with me so far? Good. You are smarter than u seem. This would also explain why there's never been a cross time cross cultural, with a sustained deep historical foundation of SSM, male or female, certainly not in western civilization, if not around the world. Granted there are scattered historical examples of various societies recognizing same sex relationships in some form, although most of those seem to be male only.

The bottom line is, at its core, marriage serves a vital function within society. It links mean and women to each other, and by extension to the products of their union, children. We tamper with marriage at are own peril.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199334 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it does.....what the state did was change the concept of marriage...its meaning and function.
No, actually it's meaning and function are exactly the same. The gender make up of the couple entering into marriage doesn't alter that in anyway. But please, feel free to prove me wrong. Please present the mandated "function" of marriage that gays are not capable of fulfilling?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The state could declare any consenting adult personal intimate relationship "marriage".
Complete lie. The state has no power to declare anyone's intimate relationships to be ANYTHING. The state most certainly does not have that power. Damn you are stupid.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the legal, cutural, social, hisorical, and/or teligious foundation of a "husband and husband", or a "wife and wife", union?
The legal foundation is being established as we speak. See recent rulings from SCOTUS if you need to know more. Or you could simply read the Constitution of the United States.

Cultural foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
Religious foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
Historical foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.

Culture, religion and history don't trump civil liberties. Sorry you can't seem to grasp that. Now run along, it must be about time for recess. I'm sure the other children are looking forward to your presence.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199335 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No you stupid moron, they declared us legally married.
And that pronouncement was based on a deep seated historical, cultural, legal, social, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of......? What exactly? What is the understanding and/or expectation of the pronouncement "....you are now legally married" uttered to tow men, or women?
You see Pietro, with a marriage of same gender couples, there won't be both a "husband and wife". Anyone past the age of 9 would know this already. They also didn't declare us "right handed and left handed". They also didn't declare us "Caucasion and Hispanic". The only thing the state declared is that we are now legally married.
In other words they acknowledged the union is different, not the same, as a union of husband and wife. Hmmmmmmm.......
Are there any other completely ridiculous questions you'd like to ask dear, in order to continue showing off what a complete idiot you are?
Do let me know.
Are you the male wife, the "mife", or is it called something else?:)
Green an Black zone

Covina, CA

#199336 Jul 1, 2013
No need to try and figure out who the nation will be saying about the event that unfolded in AZ, June 30, 2013.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199337 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfect example of your responses.
I know. Which is why you don't address them, instead you just repeat the same nonsense over and over.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
When denying the truth doesn't work, then the truth doesn't matter.
What truths would those be KiMMy? That procreation is a requirement of marriage? LOL!! That the sole definition of mating is about procreation? LOL!!!!

You talking about "truth" is hilarious!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the SCOTUS ruling, your opinion is having the same effect on reality.
Another moronic statement from the agitator! Oh, and btw, I'm not the one that thinks their opinions affect reality. That would be you. Here, let me demonstrate......
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a partnership, you do not have a marriage.
An example of you thinking your opinion affects reality!! I don't care that you don't accept my marriage KiMMy! Your acceptance means absolutely nothing. The state, and now the federal government DO accept the reality of my marriage. Not a damn thing you can do about it!! Smile!! The state's and the federal government's acknowledgement of my marriage will ensure that I, and my spouse, receive every single benefit of the institution that slugs like you do. Smirk!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Even you admitted two key differences out of many.
Yes, I admitted to differences. I also demonstrated how those differences are completely irrelevant. Don't forget that part dear!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, parents produce children.
Some do, some don't. Not all parents actually produce children KiMMy. Call Brad and Angelina if you need more information on this!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ss couples mutually don't. Ever.
So what? They aren't required to. EVER.

Smile dear!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And if children have a choice between the two, they choose parents.
Smile.
Another half baked piece of rhetoric that you didn't even get out right. Stupid cow!! Children are choosing to have parents now?!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199338 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Where did I say they were a requirement?
Oh, dear, you never stated that. you simply "imply" it ad nausea. That's why all your posts are so easily dismissed.
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Why would they need to be required when they are a natural result of mating behavior and the marriage union?
Um, no, not always. They most certainly are NOT always the result of mating behavior.

But since you brought it up, what mating behaviors are mandated for those that marry?

Please, do present more of your fundie twirling!!
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Clearly the idiot is you.
Smirk.
Nope, the idiot has been exposed as YOU.

Let us know when mating behaviors and procreation are mandated. Until then, we'll just sit back and laugh hysterically every time you insinuate they are!!!!

BTW, Betty White would be so please to know that you don't accept her marriage as real!! Oh, let's face facts. Betty White doesn't give a horse's patoot about your opinion of her marriage!! Just like everyone else doesn't!!!

Smile!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199339 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is further evidenced by the fact that a near senile, old jack ass with simple common sense has a bunch of girls in a hissy fit.
Sowing discord.

Enjoy hell you hypocritical POS!!!

Smile!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199340 Jul 1, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually it's meaning and function are exactly the same.
I think you need to take off the rainbow colored glasses, or stop drinking the spiked rainbow punch.
The gender make up of the couple entering into marriage doesn't alter that in anyway. But please, feel free to prove me wrong. Please present the mandated "function" of marriage that gays are not capable of fulfilling?
Ohhhhhhh Joh-née you are so clever. There's no "mandated" function, but rather the collective social, legal, historical, cultural, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife. Is your argument that two men/women will function the same way based on that? Interesting...waitaminit! Did you get pregnant on your wedding night? So that's it! You're a mother to be. Congratulations. That would explain the irrational moments.
Complete lie. The state has no power to declare anyone's intimate relationships to be ANYTHING. The state most certainly does not have that power. Damn you are stupid.
What do u think it does with marriage?
The legal foundation is being established as we speak.
What pray tell, is the legal foundation of gay, and lesbian, marriage?
See recent rulings from SCOTUS if you need to know more.
Which one? The one where they imposed SSM nationwide? Or the one where the power to regulate still resides with the states?
Or you could simply read the Constitution of the United States.
I checked my copy, and no mention of marriage at all. Maybe the rainbow edition mentions it.
Cultural foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
You already have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Religious foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
You already have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Historical foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
You already have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Culture, religion and history don't trump civil liberties.
No, but they do provide the foundation to the right you, ALREADY HAVE. You simply don''t want to exercise it the same way as any other man.

Sorry you can't seem to grasp that. Now run along, it must be about time for recess. I'm sure the other children are looking forward to your presence

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199341 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Which brings us back to the fact that 'ss marriage' is an oxymoron.[/QUTOE]
That's not a fact, it's a misguided opinion.

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]<quo ted text>
A ss couple will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Another idiotic opinion. Oh, but please do let us know when sterility is a mandate of marriage, ok hon?!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Nope, another incorrect opinion. The definition of mating has been presented, and there is NOTHING that presents gay mating as a defective or failed. Not one damn thing! But please KiMare, do continue lying for your Jesus!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Anal sex is NOT inherently harmful, it is NOT unhealthy, nor is it demeaning. You can present no evidence to support these opinions.

But your obsession with anal sex says much more about you then it does the millions and millions that engage in it.

Don't like it? Don't engage in it. But your thoughts on the matter are completely irrelevant. This discussion isn't about mating or types of sex. It's about the institution of marriage. Do try and keep up you old biddy.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are full of sh/t and make ignorant, deceitful, idiotic statements and then lie about what you said.
No dear, that would be you. No one is filled with more BS in this forum then you. Your ridiculous and repetitive talking points have been proven wrong repeatedly. But like the bleating jackass you are, you simply put on your ignorance shades and start the whole process all over again, hoping that you will garner a different outcome. There's a word for people that do the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. The word is "IDIOT".
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And don't forget that the SCOTUS ruling has had not one single iota of effect on those facts.
Um, you didn't present any facts. You merely brought all your twirling points to the table. SCOTUS wasn't there to present an opinion or ruling about anal sex. SCOTUS wasn't there to make an opinion or ruling about sterility. SCOTUS was there to rule on an issue about marriage. And that's what they did. The fact that you don't accept their ruling is completely irrelevant.

But don't let the fact that your stupid posts get you bitch-slapped on a daily basis prevent you from continuing to post your stupid fundie talking points. Repetition is the tool of idiots. Carry on plebe.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199342 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Really Joh-née? Is biology mandated? Is conception mandated, or does it happen when men AND women have sex. You really should work on fretting your G.E.D. Let's keep this simple. Sex makes babies, even ones who grow up and post on Internet forum sites under the name "Jonah1". Human societies throughout history have understood this. Marriage developed as a means of regulating that. Are you with me so far?
Yes you fool, I'm with you so far. You are pretending that the production of babies is a requirement of marriage. Carry on....
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. You are smarter than u seem. This would also explain why there's never been a cross time cross cultural, with a sustained deep historical foundation of SSM, male or female, certainly not in western civilization, if not around the world. Granted there are scattered historical examples of various societies recognizing same sex relationships in some form, although most of those seem to be male only.
And now you are trying to pretend that historical context has some relevance in civil law. You would be mistaken. Again.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom line is, at its core, marriage serves a vital function within society. It links mean and women to each other, and by extension to the products of their union, children. We tamper with marriage at are own peril.
There is no procreation mandate to be married. You blather on for days about children, but it will always be blathering. The production of children is not a mandate of marriage. Never has been, never will be.

Maybe you should get back on your "several marriages" equals "one marriage" routine, cause you're sucking at this one!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199343 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And that pronouncement was based on a deep seated historical, cultural, legal, social, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of......? What exactly? What is the understanding and/or expectation of the pronouncement "....you are now legally married" uttered to tow men, or women?
Um, that pronouncement was based on currently recognized law.

All your talking points weren't considered by the state, since they are all completely irrelevant.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
In other words they acknowledged the union is different, not the same, as a union of husband and wife. Hmmmmmmm.......
Um, no, no such acknowledgement was made. We filled out the same paperwork as everyone else, and were declared by the state to have a marriage. No distinction was made. The state doesn't concern itself with the pettiness of people like you dear.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you the male wife, the "mife", or is it called something else?:)
I'm called a husband and spouse. So is my husband. Would it help if I got out some crayons and drew some pictures for you Pietro?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199345 Jul 1, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww, You mad Bro?
No. How about yourself fruitloops? You seem mad.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199346 Jul 1, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Such bigoted twirl.....Yawn
>fart<
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199347 Jul 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If your comment was translated to sound, all I would hear is flatulence.
>fart<

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199348 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no "mandated" function,
Yes, we know.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
but rather the collective social, legal, historical, cultural, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife.
Um, no dear, the state isn't interested in any of these things. They are only important to fundies like yourself.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your argument that two men/women will function the same way based on that?
No dear. All these comparisons that your ilk like to try and do are your concern. No one else cares about comparing marriages. You know, given that every, single marriage on the planet is different. Also, there is no "function" requirement to marriage. I didn't get married in order to "function". My argument, since you asked, is that as a citizen of this country, I'm deserving of the same rights and privileges as everyone else. And since I'm gay, I have no desire to marry a woman even though that option is open to me, it isn't an acceptable option.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting...waitaminit! Did you get pregnant on your wedding night?
No, I didn't get pregnant on my wedding night. I'm a male Pietro. Not sure what type of education they are giving you in your trailer park, but males don't get pregnant.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So that's it! You're a mother to be.
No dear, males aren't mothers, they are fathers. And I'm not a father to be, I'm already a father.

But please, don't let facts get in the way of your stupidity. Please, carry on. So far your "arguments" have been extremely well thought out. Not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What pray tell, is the legal foundation of gay, and lesbian, marriage?
There is no such thing as gay marriage or lesbian marriage. There is only marriage. It's legal foundations for gays rests on equal treatment under the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I checked my copy, and no mention of marriage at all. Maybe the rainbow edition mentions it.
Did I say it mentioned marriage? Nope, I sure didn't. But it does address equality and rights of all citizens.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You already have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
You are right, I do have that right. But given that I'm gay, I have no emotional relationships with women, thus I would have no desire to commit to one for the rest of my life. Oh, and guess what Pietro? I have the right to marry into a legally recognized union of husband and husband. And I've done so. Not a damned thing all your bleating and whining is going to alter that.

Do have a nice day.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, but they do provide the foundation to the right you, ALREADY HAVE. You simply don''t want to exercise it the same way as any other man.
No, I don't want to exercise it as you and other religious bigots seem to think you can mandate. There's a big difference. That's why your side keeps losing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry you can't seem to grasp that.
You've given me nothing to grasp. There is no mandate to procreate and historical context of civil institutions is irrelevant.

You've got nothing, you never have. Hey, why don't you and Rizzo start in on that polygamy routine instead. That one's always a hoot.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#199349 Jul 1, 2013
Bruno wrote:
Joanah 1 is one pissed off little Biach!!
Yes he is. But he insists he's not. That's funny!

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
Gay/bi skype (Jun '16) 1 hr mel 235
News Man pleads not guilty in East Palo Alto cockfig... 9 hr un agenda 21 6
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) 16 hr Jenny 240
HELP! Stop Unjust Persecutions of TAXPAYERS ove... Fri un agenda 21 7
Complaints Against Google+ (Jul '14) Apr 25 Ditto 117
News Mysterious door rattling reported in county; ea... (Mar '09) Apr 18 liza 108
Sunnyvale park on December 4th Apr 15 Fake n Real 5

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages