Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201821 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204446 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They laughed at the argument, you agreed they laughed, thank you for validating my point.
They didn't laugh at the argument, they laughed at a bad joke. SCOTUS doesn't laugh at fellow Americans. Yet.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204447 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>

No one here has said that procreation is a requirement for marriage..
They have implied exactly that repeatedly

Thank you for saying that, so that others can see just how completely clueless you are.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204448 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They laughed at the argument, you agreed they laughed, thank you for validating my point.
http://www.businessinsider.com/justice-kagan-...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204449 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They have implied exactly that repeatedly
Thank you for saying that, so that others can see just how completely clueless you are.
Now it's "implied" eh? Thank you for finally admitting no one has stated procreation is a requirement for marriage. You lied.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204452 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>MY post.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH ...
"But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. its not a requirment in any state. So your point of being a steril marriage hold's no any water. We don't mandate procreation in a heterosexual marriage so how can you EVEN try to in same sex marriage. Now go away you really bore me.
As to "hijack the word", look it up fool, you will find that same sex marriage is found in the deffination. "
KMares post
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH ...
"We both know and understand no such thing.
Only a ss couple who need protection to have sex would tell a heterosexual couple who need protection not to procreate that it doesn't matter.
Ss couples just don't equate to marriage. You will never be more than 'marriage LIGHT'. REALLY light. So light, relationship would qualify!
Smile. "
Well Frank, KMare, seems to think that procreation is a requirement. Have a great day, Gumba
Did Kimare say procreation is a requirement for marriage? No he didn't. It's a simple concept really.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204453 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>
"But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage.

KMares post:
"We both know and understand no such thing.
I second that. We both know and understand no such thing. Procreation is closely associated with marriage. It is one of the main reasons the government supports marriage and gives benefits to marriage.

Why you would attempt to spin that away is telling.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204454 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Fine lets the polygamist marry. When you find that 12 year old girls are being forced into marriage, DO NOT flucking come crying about it. YOU want it you got it. Clueless moron.
When we talk of marriage it is understood we are talking about consenting adults.

Does anyone try to use your dumb argument that same sex marriage equality shouldn't be allowed because some kids might be forced into it? No. Because it's a stupid argument.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204455 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Now it's "implied" eh? Thank you for finally admitting no one has stated procreation is a requirement for marriage. You lied.
Yes the fundamental reason they are opposed to same sex marriage being legal is the inability for same sex couples to have children. They have said so repeatedly, one person in nearly every post they make.

Else there would not be the constant reference to “sterile”,“barren” as a reason for a reference to what they call "a sham of a marriage"

And every time they bring it up, I will remind them, and it makes no difference to me if you like it or not.

You are not important
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204456 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I second that. We both know and understand no such thing. Procreation is closely associated with marriage. It is one of the main reasons the government supports marriage and gives benefits to marriage.
Why you would attempt to spin that away is telling.
Our government does not require any couple to have the ability or intent to have children in order to marry, and never has.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204458 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the fundamental reason they are opposed to same sex marriage being legal is the inability for same sex couples to have children. They have said so repeatedly, one person in nearly every post they make.
Else there would not be the constant reference to “sterile”,“barren” as a reason for a reference to what they call "a sham of a marriage"
And every time they bring it up, I will remind them, and it makes no difference to me if you like it or not.
You are not important
Just stop lying and trying to spin it that anyone said procreation is a requirement of marriage.

You are equally as important as I.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204460 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Our government does not require any couple to have the ability or intent to have children in order to marry, and never has.
Right. And no one here has said that it is. Admit that or re-post a post where someone stated that procreation is a requirement.
Hello Look into it

Lodi, CA

#204461 Jul 24, 2013
Please tell me where in the constitution it states that it is a "right" that a union of a gay couple be called a marriage? The definition of "marriage" is between a man and a woman. Your rights to life, liberty and happiness do not include "marriage" as a defined institution. You have the ability as a gay couple to be "in union" with each other. You just do not meet the criteria for "marriage." Call it something else. Create your own word that represents your specific "union." Something like "egairram" which of course is "marriage" spelt backwards. And, while you're creating your own words and world, be sure to establish laws that define how a gay couple that dissolves their union (Have to say Gosh forbid...because God - or the Bible, does not define marriage as a gay "united" couple.)and has children, how the law will interpret who gets the child(ren)- if the partners can't agree and there's no evident negligence and each are equitably the same. How about you look into that? Where's your manners anyway?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204462 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Did you not see where Warren Jeffs married a 12 year old girl as well as a 15 year old? Did not not understand that according to Muslim law, girls as young as 9 mat be married??? Damn and these are the polygamists that you support. WTF Frank?
I am not advocating children marrying. I am not advocating anyone commit crimes.

Is that your whole dopey argument against marriage equality? Work on it. It's bogus.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204463 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>You are the most ignorant poster on topix, or a troll. You pick
Nah. You are. The angriest too. Well, maybe it's a tie with Joanie Baloney.
Over the Sholder

Monrovia, CA

#204464 Jul 24, 2013
July 2013 the latest cup report is the average bra size rises to 34DD.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204465 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I second that. We both know and understand no such thing. Procreation is closely associated with marriage. It is one of the main reasons the government supports marriage and gives benefits to marriage.
did you forget what you said in the last 30 min? Just how bad is your Alzheimer’s? I will respond to it again

Our government does not require any couple to have the ability or intent to have children in order to marry, and never has.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204466 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
did you forget what you said in the last 30 min? Just how bad is your Alzheimer’s? I will respond to it again
Our government does not require any couple to have the ability or intent to have children in order to marry, and never has.
No one here has stated that procreation is a requirement for marriage.
Stand Tall

Monrovia, CA

#204467 Jul 24, 2013
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204471 Jul 24, 2013
Jayzbird58 Buster wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, you alone got it right. Wrong.
There are restrictions on marriage, period. That includes age, polygamy, incest and same sex.
You would be lying. Same sex marriage is NOT recognized on the federal level. The federal government does not recognize civil or same sex unions, THEY HONOR THE DESIGNATIONS BY THE LONE STATES WHO DO SO. If you get married in Buttlick, Mass your union is not recognized in sinful Nevada.
Dang skippy, Nevada allows prostitution in some counties, but even they see homosexuality as worse than prostitution. You know, since prostitution is what caused gay men and lesbians to choose homosexuality. Oldest trade on the planet. A gay has to make a living, I guess.
You are behind the times, section 3 of DOMA has been stuck down, the federal government recognizes all same sex marriages preformed in the states that recognize them. the only same sex couples who are legally married did so in states that recognize them, hence every legal same sex marriage is recognized by the federal government.

Catch up on the news of the last couple of months and come back
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204472 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No one here has stated that procreation is a requirement for marriage.
You just implied that was the case, I am happy to correct you.

Procreation has no place in a discussion about the legal right to marry

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 Off Deadline: Impending sea-level rise will aff... Sun SpaceBlues 2
I am gonna tell her I wear lingerie. Sat bicountryboi 7
comment (Jul '14) Sat bicountryboi 15
sawuuoonda Jun 27 brandy trujillo 1
Helicopters on the sky of santa clara, ca Jun 26 snonna2002 1
check this out Jun 26 rip off report 2
Does anyone know Jon Scottie Clarke......a prop... Jun 18 scottie clarke 1
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages