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
176,841 - 176,860 of 200,665 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
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
Gustavo

San Pedro, CA

#204054 Jul 21, 2013
Ghost of Trayvon Martin wrote:
I hate when queers try to take headlines from me. You are queer opressors anyways.
Tell it to fat Frizzo ...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#204060 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.
You still got nothing. Repetition = the argument of fools.

Guess what? You're still a c*nt, and I'm still legally married.

Smile.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#204061 Jul 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.[/QUJOTE]

"diverse gendered"
"mutual sterile"
"duplicated gendered"

LOL!! You're so f*cking stupid!!

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]<quo ted text>
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.
"hijacking" !!! LOL!!!

Dear, straight people are still able to marry. No hijacking has occurred. But don't let reality get in the way of your run on sentences!!!

Smile.
Stupid mumbas

Monrovia, CA

#204063 Jul 21, 2013
Previous cases in the UAE have raised similar questions, with alleged sexual assault victims facing charges for sex-related offenses.

Other legal codes also have been criticized for being at odds with the Western-style openness promoted by Dubai.
Tuipd

Monrovia, CA

#204066 Jul 21, 2013
tuipid frank - keeps leaking all over.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204068 Jul 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You simply point pout that you cannot accept reality

no one has hijacked anything, I was married before same sex couples, I am still married, no change, no harm.

The reality is that same sex couples are married, and recognized at the state and federal level.

Now if your marriage was hijacked, I am not surprised, I cannot imagine you being in a very strong mirage in the first place. No harm came to my marriage
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204069 Jul 21, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll have to explain that...
No, I won't.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204070 Jul 21, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't like that one, eh?
You have not posted anything likeable.

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr papersup 15,974
Low flying Chemtrail plane over Sunnyvale?? (Mar '10) 5 hr chemtrails2see 33
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 13 hr memo maddnes 5,020
Will Eric Schmidt Destroy Google? 22 hr Awesome 27
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 22 hr Awesome 30
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Mon punch tips 7,935
Download Viber Messages Monitoring Application ... Mon jackydenny 1
•••

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 ]
•••