Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201881 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

#199315 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I've simply listed the distinctions, you've judged them. You only prove what I've noted many times, that imposing a fake relationship by gays is a foolish attempt to justify insecurity.
As to the other pontification, been there, exposed the gay twirl.
Here is the bottom line;
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.'Ss marriage' is clearly an oxymoron.
If your comment was translated to sound, all I would hear is flatulence.
Ramrod

Chico, CA

#199316 Jul 1, 2013
In the last year, there have been more than a dozen hazing incidents around the country involving high school boys who have sodomized other boys with foreign objects, reports Bloomberg. Over 40 boys have been reported victims. Most have been younger students.

There’s a dearth of data concerning the size and scope of the national boy-on-boy anal hazing problem. Astonishingly, though, a study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence has claimed that nearly 10 percent of high school males report suffering some form of sexual assault including, in some cases, forced oral sex or rape.
laughing man

Luton, UK

#199317 Jul 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If your comment was translated to sound, all I would hear is flatulence.
Which means it would be a mating call and he'd be in imminent danger from stampeding Perverts.

Imbecile.
laughing man

Luton, UK

#199318 Jul 1, 2013
Ramrod wrote:
In the last year, there have been more than a dozen hazing incidents around the country involving high school boys who have sodomized other boys with foreign objects, reports Bloomberg. Over 40 boys have been reported victims. Most have been younger students.
There’s a dearth of data concerning the size and scope of the national boy-on-boy anal hazing problem. Astonishingly, though, a study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence has claimed that nearly 10 percent of high school males report suffering some form of sexual assault including, in some cases, forced oral sex or rape.
You're not going to hear anything because of the activist Media and also because the AMA and APA, etc, has been totally compromised by the Perverts.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#199320 Jul 1, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not going to hear anything because of the activist Media and also because the AMA and APA, etc, has been totally compromised by the Perverts.
The straight kids who try to dominate, demean and bully the gay kids (or weaker kids perceived as gay) in this horrible manner are indeed mentally ill, and when they are caught, they are punished/treated.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#199321 Jul 1, 2013
Ramrod wrote:
In the last year, there have been more than a dozen hazing incidents around the country involving high school boys who have ...
And gay kids (or kids perceived as gay) are more often the victims, than the perpetrators. What do you propose to so to change this? Stop teaching bullies that it's okay to brutalize others?
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#199322 Jul 1, 2013
Joanah 1 is one pissed off little Biach!!
laughing man

Luton, UK

#199324 Jul 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The straight kids who try to dominate, demean and bully the gay kids (or weaker kids perceived as gay) in this horrible manner are indeed mentally ill, and when they are caught, they are punished/treated.
Yeah, let's start another day with an imbecile reading from the GLAAD and GLSEN script, the "safety" propaganda.

No mention of the lesbian gangs, shillboi?
Dorn

Altadena, CA

#199325 Jul 1, 2013
veryvermilion

Since: Dec 09

3,670

That is the best post of the poll! It really says it al.

God AKA the Creator has ways of solving the problems of the Creation. We humans have been overpopulating, and gay marriage will slow that down and give the Earth a chance to recover from our folly. The numbers of gays waiting to get married is staggering. All these good people coming out of the closet is really surprising.
Green an Black

Covina, CA

#199326 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

#199327 Jul 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as the interracial marriage is the same form, one man and one woman, it is the same, form and function, as everybody else's.
What "function" are you referring to KiMMy? Is this "function" mandated? Or simply more of your pseudo psycho babble?!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#199328 Jul 1, 2013
Sorry, I addressed that to KiMMy. IT was so stupid I just assumed it was her post. Pietro,
please provide information on this "function" of marriage that you refer to and whether or not that "function" is mandated?

Are their more than one "function" of marriage Pietro? Or only just one? Please provide the state or federal rulings that acknowledge this "function" and that express the participants are under mandate once they enter into marriage to fulfill this "function".

We'll all anxiously await your well supported response!!!!

“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.

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... (Sep '15) 22 hr Voter 122
Review: Senior Helpers (Mar '16) Sep 23 John A 3
News Weird noises are coming Apple complex (Feb '16) Sep 23 flbadcatowner 50
Vote For Donald Trump Sep 23 Trollbuster 16
Sunnyvale Mugshots and Criminal Arrest Records Sep 22 Carl 2
News Report of Possible Alien Signal Sets SETI Commu... Sep 19 Allright already 5
Pedophils Sep 19 ldm3 1

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages