Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 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

#204014 Jul 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
See my previous post.
Why? Will it magically become real the second time around?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your relationship is not marriage.
You're right, my relationship is not marriage. Nor is anyone else's. It's my marriage that is a marriage. Not a damned thing you can do to alter that. The state's recognition and the federal government's recognition supersedes your childish desires.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the truth.
No dear, that's your fantasy.

Smile.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#204015 Jul 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people don't need to be told murder is wrong.
Normal people no, but fundamentalists seem to need their bible to tell them it's wrong. They are whacky that way.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Love and truth are married. They will never divorce.
LOL!! Congratulations. You've joined Brian_G on the pedestal of idiocy. You are now tied to be the Village Idiot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#204016 Jul 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Real love and real truth go hand in hand. They are always united. You keep trying to claim love by denying the truth. You end up with neither.
Reality does not belong to you. It is not yours to create. It simply is.
You confuse your changing ignorance with reality changing.
The reality is, the sky is different because of different conditions. The reality is, you like males because you are homosexual.
A person's knowledge, honesty and wisdom determine how accurately they perceive truth and reality.
The reality of the sky didn't change when you went to Arizona, your understanding did.
You demand that the reality of marriage change. I simply point out that a SCOTUS ruling didn't grow a vagina on one gay partner, nor did it make them capable of mutual procreation, nor did it equate them to the diverse union of genders.
You react to my stating those things, when it is reality that you should be angry at. It is reality rejecting your demands.
It's time for you to take your meds.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#204017 Jul 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
How hysterical...
So, if I "angrily debate you" because I don't believe what I'm saying, then you must not believe what you say because you angrily debate me.
See how stupid that sounds?
Bottom line, your truth is not universal to everyone. My truth is not universal to everyone either.
Either you get it or you don't.
She doesn't. She never will. She's a moron.
Jaws

Monrovia, CA

#204019 Jul 20, 2013
I just saw a whale swim by?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204020 Jul 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the point that we've all been trying to make, lo these many years, is that your truth--which is marriage can only occur between opposite-gender couples--is not our truth.
See, no one from this side of the fence has ever suggested that straight people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Well, I guess some have suggested that the government should get out of determining who may and may not marry. But no one is arguing against your right to marry the woman that you choose.
That's your truth--to marry the woman you choose... You get to make that decision based on whatever attracts you to her--be it brains, boobs, butt, or a combination. You get to determine if you want to marry for love or to start a family.
You get to choose who you marry and why you want to marry.
We, to date, do not have that option. We're getting there. And with the SCOTUS decision, we've taken an enormous step in that direction.
But this argument all along has been about allowing the LGBT community to have the right to determine who they wish to legally marry. This is our truth. This is our reality.
We don't impede yours. You should step out of our way. And by "you" I don't mean you, specifically. I mean the "universal you". We don't really care about your opinion of us. We continue our journey with or without you.
Here is the truth and reality;

1. It is not "we've all" against me.

2. This particular discussion has not been specifically about marriage. It has been about 'is truth absolute'. You shifted because you were getting your ass kicked again. In fact, it only exposed that you are willing to deny reality and truth in the vain attempt to equate ss couples with marriage. You shown this over and over.

3. I simply point out, that for equal marriage rights, you have to qualify as an equal relationship. Ss couples don't equate from the basic essence of marriage, through all the core key elements.

4. Those facts are not "my truth" or even my opinion. Those facts are simple reality. It is why you violate your 'your truth' premise to argue with me.

5. As to progress, convincing others to join your denial will not budge reality one iota. It only sets up a bigger fall for idiots.

It will be like the people who listened to Obama's BS and now are facing the embarrassing pain of that foolishness.

Excuse me, NSA just knocked on my door.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204021 Jul 21, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for sharing your opinion, once again.
Duly noted and dismissed, once again.
Troll on, GDK.
Not dismissed, it can't be.

You simply (in every sense of the word) denied reality.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204022 Jul 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the truth and reality;
1. It is not "we've all" against me.
2. This particular discussion has not been specifically about marriage. It has been about 'is truth absolute'. You shifted because you were getting your ass kicked again. In fact, it only exposed that you are willing to deny reality and truth in the vain attempt to equate ss couples with marriage. You shown this over and over.
3. I simply point out, that for equal marriage rights, you have to qualify as an equal relationship. Ss couples don't equate from the basic essence of marriage, through all the core key elements.
4. Those facts are not "my truth" or even my opinion. Those facts are simple reality. It is why you violate your 'your truth' premise to argue with me.
5. As to progress, convincing others to join your denial will not budge reality one iota. It only sets up a bigger fall for idiots.
It will be like the people who listened to Obama's BS and now are facing the embarrassing pain of that foolishness.
Excuse me, NSA just knocked on my door.
Snicker.
1.) No idea what you're talking about... Was "we've" meant to be "we're"?

2.) Over the years of my conversations with you, I have never felt like I'm getting my ass kicked. You flatter yourself to believe this to be the case.

3.) Core key elements of marriage... Two people love one another to an extent that they wish to join their lives together in holy and/or legal marriage. You think these people must be opposite gender. I believe that they can be opposite or same-gender.
The reality is that in over 16 countries around the globe and 13 states in the US, my notion about who can enter into marriage is correct and yours is incorrect.

4.) Since marriage is a manmade construct, there are no absolute truths. Go back to your article and read it. The authors were not describing marriage; they were describing how sexual mates are selected between heterosexual couples.
People have been pairing up for eons prior to widespread legal marriage.

5.) Your last comment seems to indicate a level of anger. And since you have already determined that anyone who argues angrily is an indication that they do not believe what they are saying, can I assume that you do not believe what you are saying?
I don't think you believe what you're saying.
Go answer your door.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204023 Jul 21, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are not.
You'll have to explain that...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204024 Jul 21, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You are rude.
Didn't like that one, eh?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204025 Jul 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not dismissed, it can't be.
You simply (in every sense of the word) denied reality.
The reality is that same sex couples are married, recognized on the state and federal level, and your opinion of their marriage is meaningless.

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#204026 Jul 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>The reality is that same sex couples are married, recognized on the state and federal level, and your opinion of their marriage is meaningless.
Bravo!!
GSK commies

Monrovia, CA

#204032 Jul 21, 2013
Once again the communist in control of china have shown their dirty hand at propaganda and lies.
Ghost of Trayvon Martin

Hazleton, PA

#204034 Jul 21, 2013
I hate when queers try to take headlines from me. You are queer opressors anyways.
Gustavo

San Pedro, CA

#204035 Jul 21, 2013
I see that you are all getting tired of the therad
Gustavo

San Pedro, CA

#204036 Jul 21, 2013
Ghost of Trayvon Martin wrote:
I hate when queers try to take headlines from me. You are queer opressors anyways.
Traynon's ways live on ... Our president and skinny Al Sharpton will see to that!!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204041 Jul 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) No idea what you're talking about... Was "we've" meant to be "we're"?
2.) Over the years of my conversations with you, I have never felt like I'm getting my ass kicked. You flatter yourself to believe this to be the case.
3.) Core key elements of marriage... Two people love one another to an extent that they wish to join their lives together in holy and/or legal marriage. You think these people must be opposite gender. I believe that they can be opposite or same-gender.
The reality is that in over 16 countries around the globe and 13 states in the US, my notion about who can enter into marriage is correct and yours is incorrect.
4.) Since marriage is a manmade construct, there are no absolute truths. Go back to your article and read it. The authors were not describing marriage; they were describing how sexual mates are selected between heterosexual couples.
People have been pairing up for eons prior to widespread legal marriage.
5.) Your last comment seems to indicate a level of anger. And since you have already determined that anyone who argues angrily is an indication that they do not believe what they are saying, can I assume that you do not believe what you are saying?
I don't think you believe what you're saying.
Go answer your door.
So you concede that there are absolute truths, but because marriage is a man-made construct, it is not absolute.

If that is true, no law could be applied to an undefinable relationship.

Moreover, what you are really asserting is that the you want to change the historic definition of marriage by dumbing it down to two people in love joined in unholy or manipulated law, and call it marriage.

This leaves the distinct relationship of a heterosexual couple united as one in a life-long union with the likely possibility of procreation, without a distinct description.

As too the rest of your post, it is just such childish foolishness, it merits no response in an adult conversation.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204046 Jul 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality is that same sex couples are married, recognized on the state and federal level, and your opinion of their marriage is meaningless.
I simply point out that the union of a diverse gendered couple creates and births entirely different outcomes than a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered couple.

If homosexuals want to hijack the word that historically describes a heterosexual relationship, it does not change the distinctions, it simply creates a dishonest description of ss couples.

I don't think that is something to celebrate.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204050 Jul 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you concede that there are absolute truths, but because marriage is a man-made construct, it is not absolute.
If that is true, no law could be applied to an undefinable relationship.
Moreover, what you are really asserting is that the you want to change the historic definition of marriage by dumbing it down to two people in love joined in unholy or manipulated law, and call it marriage.
This leaves the distinct relationship of a heterosexual couple united as one in a life-long union with the likely possibility of procreation, without a distinct description.
As too the rest of your post, it is just such childish foolishness, it merits no response in an adult conversation.
Jesus Christ... Sometimes reading your posts is like herding cats.

Yes, there are absolute truths. If someone chops your head off, you die. That is an absolute truth.

Marriage, being a manmade construct, does not have absolute and universal parameters.

And, yes, I want to change the "historic" definition of marriage because the "historic" definition of marriage does not meet the needs of a segment of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of this country.

Don't throw "history" at me. If we based every single aspect of our lives on the way our ancestors interacted with their environment, then we'd still be hunter/gatherers; living in caves or some other such nonsense.

"Marriage" is no different than any other aspect of people's lives. It isn't static. It has changed multiple times over the eons and depending on which culture you live(d) in.

And talk about childish... You want your marriage to have a "distinct description".

Girl, if you walk into a room of people with your wife and they can't tell that you're married, to one another then you have more problems than just getting to own the "rights" to the word "marriage".

Having same-sex couples legally married in this country has done nothing to your marriage. You know it; I know it...
Gustavo

San Pedro, CA

#204051 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
That reminds me of the time I hired a Mexican to paint my back porch. I left him there and went and ran some errands. When I came back he was loading up his stuff in his truck in the front of the house and I asked him "Did you paint my porch already?" He said "It wasn't a porch, it was a Mercedes." Lo and behold he had painted my vintage Mercedes I keep in the backyard with house paint and a brush!
Maybe is your fault for slurring your words. You need to put the bottle and drugs down you clown. Also your dago accent doesn't help you nut-sack

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
News Surenos gang member gets new trial date (Aug '08) 13 hr microadsl 284
Crystal Rows research reviews 13 hr microadsl 2
http://www.daleelmanzel.com 13 hr microadsl 1
Mountain View Music Thread Sun Musikologist 1
knickers May 2 SarahSarahsarah 3
knickers May 1 SarahSarahsarah 1
You can win an awesome new GenZe Electric Scoot... (Sep '14) May 1 dfd 2
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]