Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201877 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.

Snaked

La Puente, CA

#227866 Jan 13, 2014
The snake won an award too #227900
skeezix

Los Angeles, CA

#227867 Jan 13, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes, the first few times don't feel so great ;-)
You should have had your probation officer use Crisco instead of going in dry.
ratio

Los Angeles, CA

#227868 Jan 13, 2014
Cali Girl 14 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just have fun,it's a rough crowd of
boys! lol
Yes. Approximately four rough boys for every ho. Water sports are encouraged.
Cali Girl 14

Los Angeles, CA

#227869 Jan 13, 2014
ratio wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. Approximately four rough boys for every ho. Water sports are encouraged.
Is that an invitation,or a threat?
Oh yeah,who cares!
So much

La Puente, CA

#227871 Jan 14, 2014
So much for poster #227869
priscilla viii

San Francisco, CA

#227872 Jan 14, 2014
Hiya,
I read the blog about our rep darryl Issa going to NKorea to hold hearings and then to Russia to hold hearings. In Korea it says he will be getting summons for all the leaders and so forth to find out why Denis Rodman had a sex change operation there without anesthesia, and what role obamacare played in the decision process. In Russia it says something about him summoning the leaders to explain why the Olympics are being held there when it is so far away and cold and how we can institute reforms here like the ones they have there to stop gays and leasbians from being gay and what they are doing to stop obamacare. This sounds awful dangerous and I hope we are willing to admit that it is going to cost a lot and be willing to go the mat if some trouble happens. Those people are different and do not belong to our church.
So much

La Puente, CA

#227873 Jan 14, 2014
So much for poster #227872
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio

Wooster, OH

#227874 Jan 14, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
But Randy, people can't help what/ who turns them on. It is natural instinct.
What is someone to do if they only get turned on by same sex? Live their life without sex? That makes no sense. And people fall in love with the sex partners and have sex with their loves. It happens and why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?
That position of yours is hateful and mean...
This is getting complicated now. The issue isn't about what turns them on. It's about legitimizing SSM. People also love other things, and not all of those things should be legitimized. I'm for maintaining some standards. When marriage means everything, it means nothing.
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio

Wooster, OH

#227875 Jan 14, 2014
rabnew wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right...you're a Yankee Doodle, it would have been Miss Nancy for you.:)
I think so...:)
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#227876 Jan 14, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
This is getting complicated now. The issue isn't about what turns them on. It's about legitimizing SSM. People also love other things, and not all of those things should be legitimized. I'm for maintaining some standards. When marriage means everything, it means nothing.
except that marriage DOESN'T mean everything. One thing is clear, SSM sure does light you up.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#227877 Jan 14, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
This is getting complicated now. The issue isn't about what turns them on...
Well of course it does - that is who gays are, why they are gay. They didn't choose whom to be attracted to, why should they be punished for it? They have as much right to be who they are on this planet as you or I do. And that includes marrying their soul mate.
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
... It's about legitimizing SSM...
Wrong, wrong, and wrong - it's about LEGALizing it. "Legitimizing it" is merely a rhetorical myth designied to evoke images and events from the distant past in order to justify unwaranted priveledges of the sect of society with power. The fact that you replace the word legalize with the word legitimize exposes an ugly slant in your posturing.
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
...People also love other things, and not all of those things should be legitimized...
Whatever those other things are, they constitute nothing but dicstractions and irrelevancies since legal gay marriage is the only topic of import here. Why do you elude to them at all? Red herrings....
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
... I'm for maintaining some standards. When marriage means everything, it means nothing.
So is everyone! And of the standards to choose from, it so happens that the ones recognizing the basic human right to marriage for gay couples are superior intellectually and ethically.
.
To want any other standard is shameful and evil.
Jerry Sandusky

Los Angeles, CA

#227878 Jan 14, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
Well of course it does - that is who gays are, why they are gay. They didn't choose whom to be attracted to, why should they be punished for it? They have as much right to be who they are on this planet as you or I do. And that includes marrying their soul mate.
<quoted text>
Wrong, wrong, and wrong - it's about LEGALizing it. "Legitimizing it" is merely a rhetorical myth designied to evoke images and events from the distant past in order to justify unwaranted priveledges of the sect of society with power. The fact that you replace the word legalize with the word legitimize exposes an ugly slant in your posturing.
<quoted text>
Whatever those other things are, they constitute nothing but dicstractions and irrelevancies since legal gay marriage is the only topic of import here. Why do you elude to them at all? Red herrings....
<quoted text>
So is everyone! And of the standards to choose from, it so happens that the ones recognizing the basic human right to marriage for gay couples are superior intellectually and ethically.
.
To want any other standard is shameful and evil.
Easy does it, little girl. Ohio Randy is my bitch.
GG gloves

La Puente, CA

#227879 Jan 14, 2014
What are you going to do with your Golden Gloves?
#227878
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio

Wooster, OH

#227880 Jan 15, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
Well of course it does - that is who gays are, why they are gay. They didn't choose whom to be attracted to, why should they be punished for it? They have as much right to be who they are on this planet as you or I do. And that includes marrying their soul mate.
<quoted text>
Wrong, wrong, and wrong - it's about LEGALizing it. "Legitimizing it" is merely a rhetorical myth designied to evoke images and events from the distant past in order to justify unwaranted priveledges of the sect of society with power. The fact that you replace the word legalize with the word legitimize exposes an ugly slant in your posturing.
<quoted text>
Whatever those other things are, they constitute nothing but dicstractions and irrelevancies since legal gay marriage is the only topic of import here. Why do you elude to them at all? Red herrings....
<quoted text>
So is everyone! And of the standards to choose from, it so happens that the ones recognizing the basic human right to marriage for gay couples are superior intellectually and ethically.
.
To want any other standard is shameful and evil.
I see your first point as being akin to saying "why should we punish illegals for not being born American". Preposterous, if you ask me. the answer to that would be "That's the way it worked out".
your second point is a mere word game, Validate, legalize, it matters not. This is not about playing word games, which is an extension of a little ploy I caught on the radio the other day. A lawyer was talking about "defending SSM", which was a ploy. SSM has never existed , until now. It has not been an enumerated right. It's not being defended, it's being pushed. It's your crowd that is slanted in posturing. It's a sales job, and most of us see no compelling need to buy it.
As to alluding, I offer no red herrings, and to dismiss any point that i have made is the evil and shameful act. After all, your take is "The needs of the SSM crowd make anybody elses interpretations and feeling irrelevant. Exactly what you accuse us of doing. And if the game is to dismiss the other side and to trivialize the concerns of a certain segment, then the majority should hold sway. And that is us, the NON-SSM crowd. Your sides propaganda job hasn't fooled anyone.
The ones who are "superior intellectually and ethically." are the ones who recognize that SSM is not a valid standard upon which to launch the "dash for the cash".
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#227881 Jan 15, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your first point as being akin to saying "why should we punish illegals for not being born American". Preposterous, if you ask me. the answer to that would be "That's the way it worked out".
your second point is a mere word game, Validate, legalize, it matters not. This is not about playing word games, which is an extension of a little ploy I caught on the radio the other day. A lawyer was talking about "defending SSM", which was a ploy. SSM has never existed , until now. It has not been an enumerated right. It's not being defended, it's being pushed. It's your crowd that is slanted in posturing. It's a sales job, and most of us see no compelling need to buy it.
As to alluding, I offer no red herrings, and to dismiss any point that i have made is the evil and shameful act. After all, your take is "The needs of the SSM crowd make anybody elses interpretations and feeling irrelevant. Exactly what you accuse us of doing. And if the game is to dismiss the other side and to trivialize the concerns of a certain segment, then the majority should hold sway. And that is us, the NON-SSM crowd. Your sides propaganda job hasn't fooled anyone.
The ones who are "superior intellectually and ethically." are the ones who recognize that SSM is not a valid standard upon which to launch the "dash for the cash".
Trivialize your concerns? Geez..... but they ARE, Blanche. They ARE trivial. Do you really expect a court to respond to an imaginary claim that has no substance? Forbidding gay couples to marry gives no benefit to heterosexual marriage. Allowing gay couples to marry harms no one.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#227882 Jan 15, 2014
It is going to be fun watching them allow same sex marriage in Utah.

Poetic Justice

It is all a matter of time now, recognized in all 50 states by the federal government and more and more individual states every year.
GG loves

La Puente, CA

#227883 Jan 15, 2014
What about miracle whip?

#227882
Jake

Los Angeles, CA

#227884 Jan 15, 2014
Big D wrote:
It is going to be fun watching them allow same sex marriage in Utah.
Poetic Justice
It is all a matter of time now, recognized in all 50 states by the federal government and more and more individual states every year.
Don't get too happy, in time things will return back to mormal. It's in the air!
Spay an Nuttered

La Puente, CA

#227885 Jan 15, 2014
Nothing like a good spay an nuttering in the morning right #227884

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#227886 Jan 15, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your first point as being akin to saying "why should we punish illegals for not being born American". Preposterous, if you ask me. the answer to that would be "That's the way it worked out".
your second point is a mere word game, Validate, legalize, it matters not. This is not about playing word games, which is an extension of a little ploy I caught on the radio the other day. A lawyer was talking about "defending SSM", which was a ploy. SSM has never existed , until now. It has not been an enumerated right. It's not being defended, it's being pushed. It's your crowd that is slanted in posturing. It's a sales job, and most of us see no compelling need to buy it.
As to alluding, I offer no red herrings, and to dismiss any point that i have made is the evil and shameful act. After all, your take is "The needs of the SSM crowd make anybody elses interpretations and feeling irrelevant. Exactly what you accuse us of doing. And if the game is to dismiss the other side and to trivialize the concerns of a certain segment, then the majority should hold sway. And that is us, the NON-SSM crowd. Your sides propaganda job hasn't fooled anyone.
The ones who are "superior intellectually and ethically." are the ones who recognize that SSM is not a valid standard upon which to launch the "dash for the cash".
.
Randy, the other side of fear is freedom.
.
Here is the simplest way of putting it: Denying a couple the right to marry for the sole reason that they are gay is hurtful and benefits no-one.
.
I think you may have embodied your anti-gay stance too deeply for me to reach.

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 Hidden streets of Menlo Park: Croner Avenue 5 hr mar 1
News Trump seeks to dismiss lawsuit over Trump Unive... Fri WasteWater 1
La Victoria's Orange Sauce (Jan '06) Thu TMM 131
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) Thu Great Artist 98
Sprint Customers Beware Thu Egregious Sprint 3
ANyone know what happened to the girl in east p... (Mar '07) Jul 20 No more illegals 43
Gay/bi skype Jul 19 Joelansing789 5

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages