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
174,941 - 174,960 of 200,347 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
laughing man

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201397
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's my favorite Jonah1 post too.
It's "dark and stormy night" Smithsonian grade stuff.

:)

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201398
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Peacocking bigotry!
I'm so glad that my use of peacock as an intransitive verb has given you so much pleasure today. The English language is quite wonderful when employed properly. Glad you could not only learn something, but that you are trying to integrate it into your vernacular as well. Bravo Tizzy. Look at you trying to edge your way into the grown up table. Good boy.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201399
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>asked michael douglas
You did? And what did he say? Did he provide you with medical research that the act itself was inherently unhealthy? Will you be sharing his response? I mean, since you brought up that you asked him and all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201400
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

CaptainMorgan2015 wrote:
<quoted text>Still falling back on "What about the kids". Look lady, having children has nothing to do with marriage. You don't have to have kids if you are married, and you don't have to be married to have kids. Simple.
Actually it's simply a weak rationale for ssm. Marriage and procreation are linked whether or not u wish to acknowledge it. Various court cases, such as , Baker vs Nelson, have.

Baker vs

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201404
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No dear, trying to deny children that need and want a loving and supportive home from obtaining such, simply because as a fundamentalist bigot you dislike people who have characteristics that are different from yours, THAT is diabolical.
Those fundamentalist bigots, trying to deny children the loving plural marriage family that their raised in, recognition, just because their parents have a different characteristics, and/or belief system that are different. THAT is diabolical.
Children raised in gay headed households are not "thrown under the bus". Attempting to deny them those loving households IS "throwing them under the bus".
[/QUOTE[

Yeah, and in plural marriage headed families too!

[QUOTE]
Your a hypocrite, and you care nothing about children. You only care about your fundamentalist agenda, regardless of how ugly and indecent it exposes you to be.
Need I say more. Children in plural marriages need support too.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201410
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's simply a weak rationale for ssm.
"What about the kids" is a weak rationale for ssm? Really? Since when? Who exactly is using this as the rationale? Is it the only rationale, or just one of many? Please try specifics sometime.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage and procreation are linked whether or not u wish to acknowledge it.
Oh, we've acknowledged it. Plenty actually, given the ridiculous number of times it's been brought up. Here's another thing that's been brought up too....

Marriage and procreation are not requirements of one another whether or not u wish to acknowledge it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Various court cases, such as , Baker vs Nelson, have.
Baker vs
Which one of these various court cases concluded that procreation was a mandate for marriage?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201411
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fundamentalist bigots, trying to deny children the loving plural marriage family that their raised in, recognition, just because their parents have a different characteristics, and/or belief system that are different. THAT is diabolical.
<quoted text>
Need I say more. Children in plural marriages need support too.
Yes, I imagine they would need support. Perhaps if you weren't so busy using them as a red herring, you could actually support them with some of your time. Seems though that you are just interested in using them to try further other agendas that you are incapable of defending without deception. Typical behavior of your ilk.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201412
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me predict an answer-
And this would be different today because ....?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201413
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

CaptainMorgan2015 wrote:
<quoted text>You better get checked
HPV: the facts
•&#8201;There are more than 100 variants of HPV (human papillomavirus). They appear in different parts of the body and manifest themselves in different ways – some cause warts, but most are symptomless.
•&#8201;Some are spread by skin-to-skin contact, while others are typically spread during sex. When HPV is found in the mouth, it probably got there as a result of oral sex.
•&#8201;HPV is common – if you're a sexually active adult, you've probably had it. By the age of 25, 90% of sexually active people will have been exposed to some form of genital HPV.
•&#8201;Around 15 types of HPV are linked to increased cancer risk, but it can't be explicitly said to cause any particular cancers. It's a long-term risk factor: over years and decades the risk is increased, rather than overnight.
•&#8201;It is calculated that between 25% and 35% of oral cancers are HPV-related – meaning that it seems to be involved in 1,500-2,000 diagnoses a year.
•&#8201;Overall, HPV-related oral cancers are most common in heterosexual men in their 40s and 50s.
•&#8201;Teenage girls in the UK and elsewhere are now vaccinated against HPV, which should in time both protect them from cervical cancers and – it's believed – future partners from HPV-related oral cancers.
Great stats.

Let's also remember to point out to KiMare and her minions, that the spreading of disease has to do with the status of the partners, NOT any particular act. Labeling particular sex acts as "harmful" is one of the stupidest tactics that fools like her love to try.
laughing man

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201415
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The English language gets silly when it is employed so melodramatically.
I say, old chap, but the bung cultist DID employ it properly.
laughing man

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201416
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Great stats.
Let's also remember to point out to KiMare and her minions, that the spreading of disease has to do with the status of the partners, NOT any particular act. Labeling particular sex acts as "harmful" is one of the stupidest tactics that fools like her love to try.
I simply must ask:

Are you a bug chaser or a gift giver?
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201417
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not believe in the Bible [a book of fairy tales] but you grew up surrounded by Bible bashing Christians like we all did and you have not freed yourself of all the Christian homophobic baggage that you carry around and falsely believe is your own. All homophobic is learned behaviour it is NOT something you were born with or something you came up with yourself. You learned it from stupid Christians.
A society that excludes minorities because of a religious prejudice with in the majority is NOT a moral society, but instead a corrupt one and a sick despicable one. You and the theocracy you would like to live in is an immoral society.
First of all you are a hetero trying to be a homo, so STFU
you don't know anything about how I was brought up. If you must know, I was brought up in a strong wholesome American family structure, there was no need to talk about homophobia because you queers stayed in the closet with the rest of the dust mops and brooms. You second class people jumped up and down yelling and screeming to the U.S. Government DEMANDING to be accepted. Just because you made a little head way doesn't mean you have accomplished your dream. The supreme court once again acted in haste and under your pressure, they failed to obsrve a 25 day window, so that will come back and kick you in the ass once again.
You are such a waste of government time.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201420
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The English language gets silly when it is employed so melodramatically.
Ah, poor Tizzy. You were so close too. Maybe next time. Why don't you go finish your juice box and come back later.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201421
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really supported marriage equality you would support them too. What you want is more of the same. Marriage not allowed for people you don't like.
Where did I state I didn't support them Tizzy? Which post includes my opinion on the matter of multiple marriages? Please provide it in order to support your accusations.

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting....

Why must you lie so much Tizzy?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201422
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me predict an answer-
As previously noted....

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201423
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all you are a hetero trying to be a homo, so STFU
you don't know anything about how I was brought up. If you must know, I was brought up in a strong wholesome American family structure, there was no need to talk about homophobia because you queers stayed in the closet with the rest of the dust mops and brooms. You second class people jumped up and down yelling and screeming to the U.S. Government DEMANDING to be accepted.
Let me assure you Penguin Boy, your acceptance has neither been requested, nor is it required. Most people aren't interested in the "acceptance" of people that refer to them as 2nd class.

Oh, one more thing dear, calling people 2nd class is not a representation of strong wholesomeness.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you made a little head way doesn't mean you have accomplished your dream.
We made more than a little headway Penguin Boy! Don't let the speed of our movement get you all bunched up though!!!
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
The supreme court once again acted in haste and under your pressure,
Our pressure?!!! I love it when fools like you try and throw out this ridiculously manufactured piece of rhetoric!!!! Was it our holding them at gunpoint? What pressure exactly was it that got to them?!!!! LOL!!! Are we still maintaining that pressure, or can they now just call a mulligan and vote again?!
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
they failed to obsrve a 25 day window, so that will come back and kick you in the ass once again.
The window wasn't mandatory and it was completely within the right of Kennedy whose jurisdiction is the 9th circuit to remove the 25 days. There will be no ass kicking as a result of this decision. All it did was deny you and yours 25 more days to cling onto Prop 8.
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a waste of government time.
No, actually PropH8, and DOMA were a waste of government time....and money. Thank Boehner for all the millions and millions that were wasted defending these unconstitutional laws.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201424
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me assure you Penguin Boy, your acceptance has neither been requested, nor is it required. Most people aren't interested in the "acceptance" of people that refer to them as 2nd class..
I love it when they think their "acceptance" is holds some kind of actual value :)

Their non-acceptance is as important to the gay community, as my non-acceptance of their religious beliefs are to their community.
FloryDUH

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201425
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We made more than a little headway Penguin Boy! Don't let the speed of our movement get you all bunched up though!!!
Just a reminder that it was 5 to 4 by a SCROTUS that followed the political winds. They didn't "care" for you. You are still 2nd Class, so don't peacock your nothingness.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201427
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

FloryDUH wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a reminder that it was 5 to 4 by a SCROTUS that followed the political winds. They didn't "care" for you. You are still 2nd Class, so don't peacock your nothingness.
You think they are second class citizens? Bring your religious crap to our children’s public schools and I will have you arrested.

Now THERE is second class citizen status :)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201430
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"What about the kids" is a weak rationale for ssm? Really? Since when? Who exactly is using this as the rationale? Is it the only rationale, or just one of many? Please try specifics sometime.
<quoted text>
Oh, we've acknowledged it. Plenty actually, given the ridiculous number of times it's been brought up. Here's another thing that's been brought up too....
Marriage and procreation are not requirements of one another whether or not u wish to acknowledge it.
<quoted text>
Which one of these various court cases concluded that procreation was a mandate for marriage?
What form of birth control do same sex couples use?

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 Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••