Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
173,301 - 173,320 of 200,363 Comments Last updated 51 min ago

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199207
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199208
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199209
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed on all counts. You go, VV!
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.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199210
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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.
Too wordy.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199211
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199212
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199213
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199214
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>What you really ment to say is that you don't have the attention span of a fly
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!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199215
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still trolling. I am not. My demonstration of your behavior ended a while ago. Have a nice day Frankie.
Too funny! Like I need a demonstration on how to troll from a fool.

Pretty lousy performance but thanks for trying anyway. You have a real nice day too. It's pride day! Cheer up sourpuss.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199216
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
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
OK Jizzy. I'll match you- on topic pertinent posts, yours vs. mine. But the problem is you don't have any.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199217
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199218
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199220
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199221
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199222
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199223
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199224
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199225
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Right, you have not posted about the topic of this thread, ever.
I'll take that as a "no".

As in no, you don't match on topic posts. Yours vs. mine. Because you have none and I have many. We understand, you're all hot air.

You're just mad because I hurt your feelings. But just get over it and cheer up! It's pride month! Have fun.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199226
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Does it say anything about impersonating other posters to the same end?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199227
Jun 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

This is rich. The biggest jackass trolls here, Bowser and Jizzy, get righteous about trolling. Priceless!

That's why I love you silly jackasses.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 News Video

•••
•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••