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
173,421 - 173,440 of 200,565 Comments Last updated 14 hrs ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199345
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199346
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Such bigoted twirl.....Yawn
>fart<
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199347
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199348
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199349
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Bruno wrote:
Joanah 1 is one pissed off little Biach!!
Yes he is. But he insists he's not. That's funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199350
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
Sorry, I addressed that to KiMMy. I was so stupid I just assumed it was her post. Pietro,
!!!!
We noticed.
Flaggers

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199351
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Keeping yourself a good start.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199352
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...You don't annoy us cur...
He says, extremely annoyed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199353
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you fool, I'm with you so far. You are pretending that the production of babies is a requirement of marriage. Carry on....
Let's see what I wrote:
"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?
Hmmmmmmm.....no use of the word "requirement", but thanks for the dishonesty.
And now you are trying to pretend that historical context has some relevance in civil law. You would be mistaken. Again.
Hmmmmmm...and just want is same sex marriage based on? The deep historical cultural practice of the union of two men, or two women, recognized as "marriage".......oh no no nooooooooo....it's based on the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The legal, historical, cultural, social, and/or religious understanding of that. Yeah...that's the context!
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.
You're just on a dishonesty roll here....you go girl. What other lies have you got? This may sound radical, but the state expects, not mandates, a husband and wife, to consummate the marriage, and engage in "marital relations". Do you know hat happens when that happens? Babies are sometimes made, even you Joh-née. You were a baby once....right? Or did the stork bring you, or maybe it was one of those rainbow colored parrots. Yeah.....that's it.]
Maybe you should get back on your "several marriages" equals "one marriage" routine, cause you're sucking at this one!!
Ohhhhhhh....you say the sweetest things. Are you saying you support polygyny?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199354
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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?
<quoted text>
In other words they acknowledged the union is different, not the same, as a union of husband and wife. Hmmmmmmm.......
<quoted text>
Are you the male wife, the "mife", or is it called something else?:)
No doubt. Even though Jonah1 is a male and therefore a "husband" he sure acts like a wife!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199355
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sowing discord.
Enjoy hell you hypocritical POS!!!
Smile!!
Whoa, wait a minute. You believe there is a hell?

chuckle. snort.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199356
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
...Now run along, it must be about time for recess. I'm sure the other children are looking forward to your presence
Nah, they're glad the angry little malcontent is not there.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199357
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiotic opinion. Oh, but please do let us know when sterility is a mandate of marriage, ok hon?!!!
Please let us know who said it was.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199358
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you fool, I'm with you so far. You are pretending that the production of babies is a requirement of marriage. Carry on....
When did he do that?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199359
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would it help if I got out some crayons and drew some pictures for you Pietro?
That would help me understand why you accuse people of saying things they didn't say. Please do it, thanks fruitcake.
Forestall

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199360
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Finally 2 LAUSD officials demoted, principal leaves over handling of sex-abuse complaints.

They should have been beaten and then stripped clean of their retirements.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199361
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is you who lacks a basis in reality, because we all know that 3 is greater than 2. Glad we covered that. You keep posting that 3 is greater than 2. We know this, thank you for focusing on details. Now, which rights do the polygamists, or even bigamists for that matter, seek that are not available to standard couples? You keep posting that 3 is gretater than 2. We know that 3 is greater than 2. You do not need to keep posting that 3 is greater than 2. We know that 3 is greater than 2. Since we know that 3 is greater than 2, we do not need to be told that 3 is greater than 2. We agree that the number of spouses is the focus of your delirious postings about how 3 is greater than 2. We are not arguing that 3 is less than 2. The number of rights is your focus, and you have yet to address that fact.
lides is very proud he finally understands a little arithmetic and he's just showing off. He'll calm down soon maybe.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199362
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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?
<quoted text>
In other words they acknowledged the union is different, not the same, as a union of husband and wife. Hmmmmmmm.......
<quoted text>
Are you the male wife, the "mife", or is it called something else?:)
Stop being daft and accept the ruling of the justices. They clearly said that in those states that allowed same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian partners were being treated as "second-class citizens".

Referring to them ass "second-class citizens" was the ONLY difference they made between a union of a man and wife and a union of man/man, woman/woman.

In marriages where both genders are present, both are referred to as "spouses", just as in a marriage composed of a man and woman. However, you can call both men "husbands" or both women "wives", if that pleases you.

You obviously detest this ruling. You obviously have no respect for same-gender partners who are married.

That puts you firmly on the wrong side of this issue and on the wrong side of the way history will see this decision.

You probably didn't wake up this morning with the understanding that future generations will see you and your kind the same way we see past segregationists and racial bigots.

Look at what's happening to Paula Deen. 40 years ago she could have said the "N-word" as much as she wanted without suffering any kind of fallout. Today, she admitted to once using the word and her business world is falling apart around her.

That's how quickly things can change.

As I've said to Kimare, "Either get on board, or get out of the way."
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199363
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no dear, the state isn't interested in any of these things. They are only important to fundies like yourself.
The state isn't interested in the social or legal aspects of marriage? Than why are we here?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199364
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...(long angry rant deleted for brevity)...bla bla bla...Do have a nice day.
You too fruitcake!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 6 min Donny B 7,924
Trouble sleeping: a warning sign of suicide in ... 56 min Pharma Maims Kills 8
Beam me up Scottie 1 hr guest 121
Tongan shot in US, grateful to Chinese Navy sur... 4 hr Zorri 12
Neil Young files for divorce from Pegi Young 11 hr Antioch 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 23 hr matches lighters 15,961
Camden, TN. Topix Moderator (Aug '13) Mon Mavis 11

Search the Palo Alto Forum:
•••

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 ]
•••