Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201846 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

#204475 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Big D whimpered, after trying and failing to spin it that someone stated procreation is a requirement for marriage.
No Shows

Monrovia, CA

#204476 Jul 24, 2013
What do scum like the GOP, RNC, Tea Party REPUBLICANS ALL HAVE IN COMMON? There do nothings, the whole bunch of them!

Obama says D.C. has taken its eye off the ball, blaming GOP for gridlock in government.

They are Oh so good at dragging their 5 year old mentality feet, too. There a bunch of NO SHOWS.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204477 Jul 24, 2013
commonpeeps wrote:
<quoted text>And that's for the guys. Man boobs or trannie surgery.
I bet Poof has big floppy baloney-tits.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204478 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I waste the time with a deliberate and continual liar?
You can't even be honest about accusing me of troll behavior because I exposed a gay troll.
You live a lie, and you demand others join your deceit.
Oh, I imagine a pastor would jump at the chance to meet with a "reprobate". Isn't that what you do? Aren't you supposed to be out saving souls and whatnot?

My guess, again, is that you won't face someone who is real. You'll only deal with this issue (as you do with most things) in the abstract.

You're not interested in reality.

I'll pay your gas to and from Knoxville (if you're still in Greeneville) to come to a gay men's discussion group, where you can address all of us in one room. We'd only be too happy to meet with you and hear your side.

Are you up for it?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204479 Jul 24, 2013
No Shows wrote:
What do scum like the GOP, RNC, Tea Party REPUBLICANS ALL HAVE IN COMMON?*There do nothings, the whole bunch of them!
Obama says D.C. has taken its eye off the ball, blaming GOP for gridlock in government.
They are Oh so good at dragging their 5 year old mentality feet, too.*There a bunch of NO SHOWS.
*They're
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204480 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D whimpered, after trying and failing to spin it that someone stated procreation is a requirement for marriage.
Donít worry, as long as no one mentions procreation as any even a distantly related reason to not allow same sex couples to marry.

I wonít bring it up again

However if anyone mentions the ability to have children in any way at all as an argument to not allow same sex couples to marry, as you did, I will be happy to correct them
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#204481 Jul 24, 2013
No Shows wrote:
What do scum like the GOP, RNC, Tea Party REPUBLICANS ALL HAVE IN COMMON? There do nothings, the whole bunch of them!
Obama says D.C. has taken its eye off the ball, blaming GOP for gridlock in government.
They are Oh so good at dragging their 5 year old mentality feet, too. There a bunch of NO SHOWS.
There, there, there probably all as el stupido as there are there. It's they're dim whit dropout welfare bagger. Obviously a lib eubonics 6th grader.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204482 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Donít worry, as long as no one mentions procreation as any even a distantly related reason to not allow same sex couples to marry.
I wonít bring it up again
However if anyone mentions the ability to have children in any way at all as an argument to not allow same sex couples to marry, as you did, I will be happy to correct them
I did not use children as an argument against marriage equality. You lie.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204483 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.
.
Here you go, as you have obviously forgotten again

Procreation has not now nor ever been a basis for allowing marriage in this country.

Take your Alzheimer meds
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204484 Jul 24, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like when marriage defined the wife as property of the husband?
No, just husband and wife
Like that "distinct" relationship?! I love when fundies try and rewrite history in order to justify their agendas!!!
Or when the Glibtees try and rewrite history in order to justify their agendas!!!
Courts dont' recognize your manufactured and ridiculous "essence of marriage". Courts are only interested in the law. And the courts find no compelling reason to continue to discriminate against gay people. Sucks for you.
Gay people can marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, just like anyone else.
You've pointed out ONE distinction. That gay people won't be capable of producing a child without outside assistance. That distinction is completely irrelevant to the states, since marriage has no procreation requirement.
The fact that you are completely unable to grasp this reality isn't our problem, it's yours child.
Why would there need to be a "procreation requirement"? Is there a sex requirement? The law presumes a married couple will engage in "marital relations", aka sexual intercourse. Which of course leads to conception.
There is absolutely nothing in your nonsense that terrifies us. You are completely insignificant. Your refusal to acknowledge our marriages means diddly squat, because you are nothing more than a pimple on the face of humanity.
And you are a clown on that pimple.
10 years ago there were no states that would recognize our marriages. Today there are 13 states, the Disctrict of Columbia, and 17 foreign countries that recognize our marriages as the same as yours.
That's not quite accurate. Even the UK had to acknowledge the differences regarding consummation and SSM.
And those numbers will continue to grow, very quickly. The state bans will very soon be overturned as unconstitutional (watch Pennsylvania very close in the coming months sweetiepie!!!). The only one terrified....is you!!!!
Only time will tell.
The states, and the federal government will NEVER recognize your made up essences, your imaginary link to humanities existence and future, or your mutual sterility!!!! Ha ha ha ha haha ha!!!! Stupid KiMare!!!
Your ignorance continues.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204485 Jul 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would there need to be a "procreation requirement"? Is there a sex requirement? The law presumes a married couple will engage in "marital relations", aka sexual intercourse. Which of course leads to conception..
In this day and age that is of course a choice. I do agree however that there should be no procreation requirement, as there are millions of happily married couples that either do not have the ability, or the desire to have children. And we count no less of their marriages than anyone elseís.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204486 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go, as you have obviously forgotten again
Procreation has not now nor ever been a basis for allowing marriage in this country.
Take your Alzheimer meds
No one said procreation is a requirement for marriage. You insist someone did. Prove it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204488 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>KMARE
Prove it. Re-post a post where Kimare said procreation is a REQUIREMENT for marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204489 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
In this day and age that is of course a choice. I do agree however that there should be no procreation requirement, as there are millions of happily married couples that either do not have the ability, or the desire to have children. And we count no less of their marriages than anyone elseís.
Not to worry, there is no procreation requirement. Never was.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204490 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said procreation is a requirement for marriage. You insist someone did. Prove it.
I only remind people that it is not a requirement whenever they bring up the ability to have children as any kind of reason to not allow same sex marriage.

Donít worry, they donít mention procreation with respect to being able to marry, and neither will I.

When you used it, I reminded you, if you donít like being reminded, try not forgetting that it is not now nor ever has been a requirement.

I donít take orders from you and will say what I like, when I like :)
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204491 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>KMARE
You are assuming he reads any posts but his own, he responds to mine without comprehending even a tiny portion of what I said.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204492 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. Re-post a post where Kimare said procreation is a REQUIREMENT for marriage.
we donít need to, we already know, and it is more fun to make fun that you are as ignorant as you are.:)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204493 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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
No, the whole reason for this argument is to correct you. No one said procreation is a requirement for marriage.

Yet you insist someone did. I have said (and I stand by it) that procreation is closely related to marriage and why argue otherwise? Any freshman sociology student knows that. And it's one of the reasons the government gives perks to marriage. Why argue otherwise? What is the goal of your spin? Of course procreation is associated with marriage. Of course it's never been a REQUIREMENT.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204494 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming he reads any posts but his own, he responds to mine without comprehending even a tiny portion of what I said.
You said that someone said procreation is a requirement of marriage. You lie. No one said that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204495 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
we donít need to, we already know, and it is more fun to make fun that you are as ignorant as you are.:)
I'd love to see you tell a judge that someday. "Your honor, I don't need to prove it, we already know and it is more fun to make fun that you are ignorant..."

Then you'd come flying out the courtroom door and land on your bony ass in the street!

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
Review: Bushnell & Assoc - Ronald G Bushnell CPA (Feb '11) Sat fringe 2
News Ruckus Stock Roars On School Wi-Fi, Cable TV Fri wirelesswatch 1
News Former Santa Cruz mayor, husband, sued for sexu... Jul 22 anon 10
Does anyone know Jon Scottie Clarke......a prop... Jun '15 scottie clarke 1
News Talking with ... One of the nation's leading di... Jun '15 newsfail 2
It's a Justice County and don't you forget it. ... Jun '15 Gang Stalking 1
News Aircraft noise activists seek ear of FAA via FA... Jun '15 Agents of Corruption 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages