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
177,201 - 177,220 of 200,581 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204502 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
I don’t think of you as any kind of judge, you are about the last person I would have judge anything.

The people that did bring the other side up in front of a judge, ended up with the judges laughing at the argument.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204503 Jul 24, 2013
Once you hate someone, everything they do is offensive. Like Big D is thinking "Look at that son-of-a-b!tch Frankie eating those crackers like he owns the place."
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204504 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t know why someone would mention procreation as having anything to do with being able to marry, it isn’t now, and never has been, at least not in this country.
Because it's one of the main reasons marriage was invented. It's foolish to argue otherwise.

And it's dishonest to say someone said something they didn't.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204505 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t think of you as any kind of judge, you are about the last person I would have judge anything.
The people that did bring the other side up in front of a judge, ended up with the judges laughing at the argument.
They didn't laugh at the argument. They laughed at a joke about older people having kids. If the argument was laughable, it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204506 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's one of the main reasons marriage was invented. It's foolish to argue otherwise.
And it's dishonest to say someone said something they didn't.
Well I have some interesting information for you that you are obviously ignorant of.

There are millions of people married who either cannot, or choose not to have children. Our government has not restricted marriage only to people who can or intend to have children. That isn’t an opinion, that is a fact.

There has never been a law restricting people from marrying because of their ability or intent to have children or not.

It never has, and we are not about to vote in a new law so you can specifically exclude these people.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204507 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Once you hate someone, everything they do is offensive. Like Big D is thinking "Look at that son-of-a-b!tch Frankie eating those crackers like he owns the place."
You are like a little puppet on strings.. Dance Frankie.. Dance!( chuckle )
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204511 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's one of the main reasons marriage was invented. It's foolish to argue otherwise.
Here you go

you are implying and I will be happy to correct you

procreation is not now nor has ever been needed to obtain a marriage license, and has no place in any argument against same sex marriage.

Dance Frankie! Dance!

No Shows

Monrovia, CA

#204513 Jul 24, 2013
July 2013

Communist Chinese are all but phonies, watch as their empire crumbles.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204514 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.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Man up VV.

You are running from a lie. Face it, and then we can talk about meeting.

However, I'm simply pointing out that the reunion of a man and woman in marriage connects humanity with the very roots of their existence and, at the same time, reaches into the future with the next generation.

A ss couple just cannot equate to that depth of diversity in a heterosexual couple united as one, in anyway, shape or form. The past and future joined by a man and woman into the present embarrassingly exposes the absolute barrenness of a ss couple.

It really makes it shameful to even speak of equating the two relationships.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204515 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D is very frustrating when he starts lying. Which is often.
Not once have I, I don't need to, I have the luxury of being right

It has not now nor ever been a requirement in this country

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204516 Jul 24, 2013
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.

Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!

LOL

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204521 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.
Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!
LOL
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Stuck on stooopid
You were the one who thought my post said procreation is a requirement.

You doubled down on dumb honey!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204522 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.
Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!
LOL
I am not a homosexual, and I am telling you now ( over and over ) that procreation is not now nor ever has been a requirement for marriage in this country
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204523 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is dishonesty when you accuse people of saying something they did not say, like you do. It is a lie.
Right now you are attempting to imply I believe procreation is a requirement of marriage. You are lying. You know I never said that. And you know that is not my position.
You stop bringing up procreation as a reason to defend your homophobic friends and I will stop calling you on it
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204524 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to catch up, it is also between same sex couples, legally recognized on the state and federal level, as legal a marriage as yours or mine.
"As legal a marriage as yours or mine"? Ya don't say. So the state has the same expectations of a same sex marriage as it does an opposite sex marriage, the same presumptions? It makes the same pronouncement, as in "By the power vested in me by the state, I now pronounce you husband and wife"?
Procreation is not a requirement
Sexual behavior is not a requirement
True
True
Type of sex acts are not specified
etc
Ahhhhhh.....therein lies the distinction, pun intended. As we already discussed, same sex couples, cannot, according to the legal definition in that state, "consumate" their marriage by the first act of sexual intercourse, also know as colitis. Thanks for playing though. But don't worry, u won't go home empty handed, we have a collectors set of "Big D" action figures.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204526 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You stop bringing up procreation as a reason to defend your homophobic friends and I will stop calling you on it
None of Frankie's friends fear homogenized milk, skim milk maybe....but definitely not homogenized.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204528 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t know why someone would mention procreation as having anything to do with being able to marry, it isn’t now, and never has been, at least not in this country.
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204529 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a homosexual, and I am telling you now ( over and over ) that procreation is not now nor ever has been a requirement for marriage in this country
“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.

“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204530 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a homosexual, and I am telling you now ( over and over ) that procreation is not now nor ever has been a requirement for marriage in this country
“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33

“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204531 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
I find it hilarious that homosexuals keep talking about no 'requirement' for procreation.
Especially when marriage needs protection NOT to procreate, and gays need protection to HAVE sex!
LOL
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a homosexual, and I am telling you now ( over and over ) that procreation is not now nor ever has been a requirement for marriage in this country
Read it again big dummy. Where did I say it ever was?

Why would you want to require something you need to protect from?

Dumb, dumb, dumb...

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
Beam me up Scottie 12 min guest 122
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 7 hr Macko mono 5,000
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 14 hr Sad to Glad 25
Neil Young files for divorce from Pegi Young 14 hr Lightning Linda 3
Will Eric Schmidt Destroy Google? 15 hr Getting Real 25
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 16 hr Tank ever 7,926
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Aug 26 matches lighters 15,961
•••

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 ]
•••