Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,188

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.

Full Story
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204307 Jul 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The above makes no sense. It is simply a childish attempt to divert from the fact that marriage connects us to the roots of humanity, and at the same time births our future. SS couples do neither. Clearly a monumental difference.
While you spend your time trying to divert people from the fact that same sex couples are indeed married and recognized as such on both the state and federal level.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204308 Jul 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The above makes no sense. It is simply a childish attempt to divert from the fact that marriage connects us to the roots of humanity, and at the same time births our future. SS couples do neither. Clearly a monumental difference.
Here are the facts... Mankind as we know it has been around for about 200,000 years. Marriage has been around for around 4,500. Some say marriage is 10,000 years old; but we have no evidence of that.

People were making babies long before marriage was on the scene. And people still make babies outside of marriage.

There is no evidence that marriage was needed to create offspring and societies for a period of about 190,000 to 195,500 years. And there's no evidence that marriage is necessary to create children now.

So, on what basis do you make the claim that "marriage connects us to the roots of humanity, and at the same time births our future"?

I think that's check and mate...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204309 Jul 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say that?
You never answered how why you defended a gay troll attack I exposed.
And why are such games needed by adults addressing a legitimate cause?
Such questions from the ultimate gamer... You lie about your "facts". You mislead people to believe the drivel you post. When you're backed into a corner, you suddenly change course.

You've been playing games for year. To take a page out of your playbook, you don't even believe half the stuff you post.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204310 Jul 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your relationship has no connection to the very roots of human existence. The reunion of a male and female reflect those roots in a powerful way.
Your relationship births nothing for future humanity. Marriage is mating behavior and humanity joining together to provide the very best for human fruit.
I'm sorry, but all you have is a double mutation mistake relationship. Perhaps 'mutake' would be a better description than marriage?
Prove that "marriage is mating behavior". Prove that "mating behavior" is the only reason people marry.

Mating MAY take place in marriage, but it's disingenuous to say that all marriages are mating behavior.

So, just prove your comments.

We're waiting...
Sack O Brains

Monrovia, CA

#204311 Jul 23, 2013
Sack O Brains, leave this alone.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204312 Jul 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your relationship has no connection to the very roots of human existence. The reunion of a male and female reflect those roots in a powerful way.
Your relationship births nothing for future humanity. Marriage is mating behavior and humanity joining together to provide the very best for human fruit.
I'm sorry, but all you have is a double mutation mistake relationship. Perhaps 'mutake' would be a better description than marriage?
LOL

Mating behavior has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a marriage license.

There are no restrictions to mating behavior in general ( people can and do have all kinds of sex regardless of a marriage )

and there are no restrictions on a marriage license with respect to mating behavior

Got anything else cause that didnít fare as well as the Titanic did

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204313 Jul 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are the facts... Mankind as we know it has been around for about 200,000 years. Marriage has been around for around 4,500. Some say marriage is 10,000 years old; but we have no evidence of that.
People were making babies long before marriage was on the scene. And people still make babies outside of marriage.
There is no evidence that marriage was needed to create offspring and societies for a period of about 190,000 to 195,500 years. And there's no evidence that marriage is necessary to create children now.
So, on what basis do you make the claim that "marriage connects us to the roots of humanity, and at the same time births our future"?
I think that's check and mate...
Hardly.

I was referring to further back than 200,000 years ago. The reunion of man and woman in marriage reflects early genderless life. Moreover, you still ignore the other side; Marriage connects us to our past and our future.

Ss relationships are a momentary mistaken mutation aberration.

The distinction could not be more graphic or monumental!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204314 Jul 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove that "marriage is mating behavior". Prove that "mating behavior" is the only reason people marry.
Mating MAY take place in marriage, but it's disingenuous to say that all marriages are mating behavior.
So, just prove your comments.
We're waiting...
I never made any of those claims.
About time

Monrovia, CA

#204315 Jul 23, 2013
CalPERS of California has opened special window for same-sex couples to enroll in health benefits services.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204316 Jul 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Such questions from the ultimate gamer... You lie about your "facts". You mislead people to believe the drivel you post. When you're backed into a corner, you suddenly change course.
You've been playing games for year. To take a page out of your playbook, you don't even believe half the stuff you post.
I'm simply asking why you defended a gay troll attack when I exposed it.

It's not a difficult question.
Pietro Armando

Carlisle, MA

#204317 Jul 23, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
And the health and safety of adoption.
And the health and safety of 2 people who have no intention of bearing children.
But is that the basic function and purpose of marriage?
Marriage as we know it today as a legal contract,
A contract for what reason?
same sex and opposite sex, with children or without children, enhances the health and safety of the people who are married
Are there specific studies conducted on both male and female SSCs to validate that claim?
. There are many benefits of marriage, and there may be drawbacks to being married, depending upon the individuals involved. The basic question is, "is the legal contract of marriage being carried out equally for all concerned". The answer is, "yes in some places, and no in others".
How does one define "equally", when due to the gender composition of the couple, not all laws are applicable?
Goneners

Monrovia, CA

#204318 Jul 23, 2013
Stop with the idiot questions, just shut up and go away!

P.S. insult one another all you want, it appeaars the moderator hasn't got a clue or is just a racists too!
Pietro Armando

Carlisle, MA

#204319 Jul 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're now saying that there ARE other reasons that people marry besides children.
Yes
And if other reasons exist, then people--including same-gender couples--should be allowed to marry based on those reasons.
Why people marry, does not explain why marriage is a licensed relationship by the state. If the state licenses marriage because procreation of aspect of the male female sexual union, then why people choose to marry is irrelevant.
You can't say that marriage equals mating/procreation and say that other reasons exist at the same time.
Remove the procreation all aspect, and why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry?
Pietro Armando

Carlisle, MA

#204320 Jul 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
annulment or divorce means that one person in the marriage wants out, no law exists anywhere where the state steps in and forces an annulment when neither party wants the annulment.
Not once did I indicate that a state would force an annulment, I simply pointed the obvious, a same sex couple is not treated "equally", because they physically cannot consumate the relationship. So much for all things being "equal".
With no fault divorce anyone can divorce anyone for no reason at all.
Here is where I will agree with you, the ability to procreate is the same level of importance to a marriage as no reason at all.
Yet the failure to consumate is grounds for an annulment in some states, grounds which ARE NOT applicable to SSCs.
stinkin badges

Monrovia, CA

#204321 Jul 23, 2013
Rutten wrote that the Tea Party is transforming Republicans into "the national white people's party with its center of gravity in the old Confederacy."

Rutten knows that the American crazy centrists he exposed are far more insane and racists on social issues.

He once again exposed those crazy Tea Party member's at large and at lose, look at one of those nuts from the high desert did in Oakland a couple weeks again, the crank-head Tea Party member CLIMBED UP ON STAGE AND ATTACKED A SENIOR CITIZEN (BLACK MAN) who did know her from Adam.

Sounds like what the Tea Party Member's living and on the City Council would have done if they were in her place.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204322 Jul 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never made any of those claims.
I'm using your exact quote "marriage is mating behavior".

Marriage is not mating behavior.

Prove that it is.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204323 Jul 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes
<quoted text>
Why people marry, does not explain why marriage is a licensed relationship by the state. If the state licenses marriage because procreation of aspect of the male female sexual union, then why people choose to marry is irrelevant.
<quoted text>
Remove the procreation all aspect, and why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry?
Pietro, marriage is a personal decision. The state doesn't issue marriage licenses based on their procreative intentions. The state has no business telling unrelated, consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. That's what the courts seem to be finding throughout the nation. And that's why people seem to be supporting same-gender marriage equality.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204324 Jul 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm simply asking why you defended a gay troll attack when I exposed it.
It's not a difficult question.
Exactly which "gay troll attack" are you talking about? Would it be the one where I destroyed your notion that "marriage and mating" are one and the same? Or the one where you seem to suggest that Christ "overruled" (my word) Paul in his claim that "revilers" would not be allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204325 Jul 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm using your exact quote "marriage is mating behavior".
Marriage is not mating behavior.
Prove that it is.
You are using a partial quote if at all.

That is why you don't even reference it.

But more than that, you are trying desperately to distract from the profound distinction of the marriage reunion uniting humanity with their roots and their future at the same time.

Ss couples? A mutation mistake with no future and a past birthed within heterosexuality.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204326 Jul 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, marriage is a personal decision. The state doesn't issue marriage licenses based on their procreative intentions. The state has no business telling unrelated, consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. That's what the courts seem to be finding throughout the nation. And that's why people seem to be supporting same-gender marriage equality.
VV, marriage has always defined a distinct relationship among all cultures.

Laws limited involvement has historically been directly related to procreation within marriage. That potential has never needed a 'demand'. That is why marriage needs protection to prevent procreation where ss couples need protection to HAVE sex.

Courts are denying the essence of marriage in the face of a massive denial and herd mentality.

We simply and honestly point out the distinctions between the relationships and the consequences of that denial.

You are terrified people will wake up.

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
La Victoria's Orange Sauce (Jan '06) 1 hr Kay 128
Beam me up Scottie 19 hr guest 12
Is this intergration or segregation Whatever ha... Oct 18 Love it or Leave it 1
Apple shows off new gadgets, but Pay is bigger bet Oct 18 Philip Cohen 3
Sunnyvale fire? Oct 17 KC Jones 3
Can I earn her trust back? Oct 17 Ko Majone 2
Palo Alto Hosts 'Smart' City Partner From Austr... Oct 15 Sick of paying fo... 1

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match

Palo Alto Jobs

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 ]