Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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

Hayward, CA

#188020 Apr 10, 2013
Warning! True marriage equality being discussed! Get out plenty of "Off Topic" judge-it's, Big D et al will need them.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188021 Apr 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell him not to quit his day job.
Well he hasn’t quit his day job, but he is requested more and more in clubs in the area, he has a really good stand-up comic routine, better at it than I would be, and usually better than the headliner they have had.

He is the one that told me how anal sex is like spinach

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188022 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Im probably not as bad as I appear here on this forum.
I laugh more than I rant.
Last night my brother came by and said he was annoyed the the churches have finally won on the gay issues.
I asked him what he meant.
and he said... "Look at the news, all these ballot measures and court cases to allow same sex marriage, and right along with them measures to make marijuana legal"
I said... "so"
He replied "So the churches finally get their way, Homosexuals are to be stoned!"
As I was reading that, I wasn't sure where it was going. Then I got to the punch line. Bazinga! Funny.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188023 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
So Big D, should polygamy b legal? We wouldn't want to stay in the dark ages, now would we?
Let me predict Big D's answer will be something like-

"Yes it should be legal because I realize it would be hypocritical to say otherwise so it should be legal even though polygamists use polygamy to commit their crimes of child rape and welfare fraud and no one wants it and it has a very very bad image and Frankie is not carrying signs for it."
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188024 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well he hasn’t quit his day job, but he is requested more and more in clubs in the area, he has a really good stand-up comic routine, better at it than I would be, and usually better than the headliner they have had.
He is the one that told me how anal sex is like spinach
Requested at more and more Modesto comedy clubs! YUK!YUK!YUK! Good one!

Please don't tell us about anal and spinach. Please.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188025 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As I was reading that, I wasn't sure where it was going. Then I got to the punch line. Bazinga! Funny.

Yeah he is pretty funny

But it is all in the timing of how he says it. It doesn’t come across as funny here.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188026 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah he is pretty funny
But it is all in the timing of how he says it. It doesn’t come across as funny here.
Right.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188027 Apr 10, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say anything about excluding bisexuality or panseuality? Nope!
Si if homosexuality is not a mental disorder, are those other sexualiites also not disorders?
Of course no one needs government sanction to find a partner. There's just that recognition that one wants to spend the rest of their life and not worry about interventions of relatives on matters like end of life decisions and contact.
One does not need a marriage license do that, nor is there a state obligation to recognize any, and all, adult personal intimate relationships.

[QUOTE
I dunno why it is necessary to go over this stuff repeatedly. Gaining access to marriage on a national level precludes the need to get all states on the same page over the matter, thus reducing the complexity of all the other contracts that get suggested from time to time.
[/QUOTE]

"Access to marriage"? The historic, legal, cultural, and/or religious conjugal marriage of husband and wife, present across time and place? So your suggestion is we should alter that concept so two men/women can have a contract with each other, recognized nationwide. Is that a fair assessment?
Now if you want to take AKpilot's stance and say the fed ought to stay out of all marriages, then that is a horse of a different color and the only valid argument against taking this to a national level rather than keeping it in individual states. But that means us heterosexuals have to give up the enumerated federally granted benefits that come with legal marriage contracts.
"Us heterosexuals"? How about us men AND women regardless of self identified sexual orientation. A opposite sex mixed orientation couple would also have to give up the bennies too. Not everyone fits so neatly into the hetero, or homo, box.
Marriage recognises my union with my wife
Exactly, husband and wife, just like me.
and I see no reason it shouldn't recognise the union of my nephew and his partner of several years.
As long as his partner is a woman, he gets the same marriage license as you and I.
BTW, they hold a valid Maryland marriage license. Sooo, they're married and those of us who know them recognise this fact as does the state of Maryland.
Valid based on what? A state could grant two same sex adult siblings a license too. The state can grant any license it so chooses.
Social progress doesn't have any bearing on facts of life or biology, but it does get involved in the state's interest in marriage.
What is that interest based on, at its most fundamental basis? The union of husband and wife, in essence the sexual union there of and what it produces. That is why marriage exists, not individual marriages, nor the motive as to why people marry, but the recognition of the institution itself. Otherwise, why would it matter who marries who?
Whether you agree or not, this is a matter of fact in a growing number of states. Social progress separates us from the rest of the species that inhabit this planet.
okayyyyyyyyy
Or do you think it would be okay if someone bigger and badder than you entered your home and threw you out, killed your children, and took your wife for his own?
Huh? What in the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, are ya talking about SheeVoH?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188028 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>"Us heterosexuals"? How about us men AND women regardless of self identified sexual orientation. A opposite sex mixed orientation couple would also have to give up the bennies too. Not everyone fits so neatly into the hetero, or homo, box.
I agree in part,( although you will disagree with how I agree ) there should be no difference, benefits and recognitions should all be applied equally regardless of the orientation of the marriage.

I never liked the term “African American” for example, they are Americans... period, regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin. I don’t see the need for a qualifier

Same with Homosexuals, they are married, not same sex marriage or homosexual marriage... it is just a marriage... period, same rights and benefits, no qualifier needed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188029 Apr 10, 2013
Part 2
Sheesh void of hate:
Most women can't stand up to pee, so your urinal argument is a bit of a red herring.
Cute that you should mention a fish and women in the same sentence. At lease you didn't call it a red tuna. The point is men and women are different. A gay man, regardless of how manly or girly he may be, uses the same bathroom as you or I. A lesbian woman, regardless of how butchie she may be, or femmine, goes to the gynecologist, not the proctologist.
Gay men do find themselves attracted to other gay men in the same fashion that I am attracted to women.
It is what it is.
It is sexual in nature but not wholly sexual. There is a huge emotional component.
It is what it is, agreed.
Otherwise why not just use prostitutes if all you're main goal is getting laid?
That's not the main goal. There is a byproduct of sexual relations between men and women, they're called children. Marriage serves as societies mean of connecting men, and women, with not only each other, but with what ever children they may have. Its not simply about the adults. If sex didn't make babies, why would it matter who married who, are even recognize marriage at all? Why prohibit blood relatives from marrying?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188030 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Part 2

That's not the main goal. There is a byproduct of sexual relations between men and women, they're called children. Marriage serves as societies mean of connecting men, and women, with not only each other, but with what ever children they may have. Its not simply about the adults. If sex didn't make babies, why would it matter who married who, are even recognize marriage at all? Why prohibit blood relatives from marrying?
So what are you implying here, as a reason to disallow Same Sex marriage?

That the ability or intent to have children is somehow a requirement for a marriage?.... because you know that has already been discussed, here, and in the courts, and you know how that went.

People that don’t have the ability or intent to have children are and always have been allowed to marry, it has never ever been a requirement in any way shape or from, and so has no place in a discussion about same sex couples.

I don’t care about divorce or annulment, that requires a party in the marriage to desire a divorce or annulment, that can be achieved for no reason at all. We are talking about 2 people that want to marry, where is the law that says that if they do not have the ability or intent to have children, they are not allowed to, even though they both want to.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188031 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree in part,( although you will disagree with how I agree ) there should be no difference, benefits and recognitions should all be applied equally regardless of the orientation of the marriage.
Agreed, as long as the husbnd AND wife, regardless of their self identified sexual orientation, are present, marriage laws should be applied equally.
I never liked the term “African American” for example, they are Americans... period,
I always found it puzzling for the need to hypenate every racial grouping, except for those of European descent. I'm the grandson of southern Italian immigrants, and yet I'm refered to as white. But if a person has a Spanish sounding sir name, regardless of how many generations they are removed for the ethnic land of origin, they are refered to as hispanic. So a person whose great great geat grandarents were from, say Mexico, is called "Hispanic" or "Latino" (Italians are latins too), yet a grandson of southern Italian immigrants, is called "white". Go figure.
Same with Homosexuals, they are married, not same sex marriage or homosexual marriage... it is just a marriage... period, same rights and benefits, no qualifier needed.
Hmmmmm...not quite...close maybe....we both know that. Its still a same sex marriage. If there's two men/women on the license, it an SSM.

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#188032 Apr 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>Hundreds? WOW! I was a sailor for years and doubt if I broke 100. Maybe. But I forgot.
I had sexy with 17 I'm a week to win a bet in college.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188033 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, as long as the husbnd AND wife, regardless of their self identified sexual orientation, are present, marriage laws should be applied equally.
<quoted text>
I always found it puzzling for the need to hypenate every racial grouping, except for those of European descent. I'm the grandson of southern Italian immigrants, and yet I'm refered to as white. But if a person has a Spanish sounding sir name, regardless of how many generations they are removed for the ethnic land of origin, they are refered to as hispanic. So a person whose great great geat grandarents were from, say Mexico, is called "Hispanic" or "Latino" (Italians are latins too), yet a grandson of southern Italian immigrants, is called "white". Go figure.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm...not quite...close maybe....we both know that. Its still a same sex marriage. If there's two men/women on the license, it an SSM.
I too am mixed, I am told that I have just barely enough American Indian in me to move to a reservation ( LOL ) but you would never know it to look at me, light brown ( was blond when a child ) hair and blue eyes. I have quite a bit of Scandinavian, and no small amount of German in my blood

But I am not an American Indian/Scandinavian/German-Ame rican.... Im just an American.

I think we are not doing the right thing putting the qualifiers in there, African American or Mexican American... we are just Americans, which has nothing to do with Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin.

If we are ever going to erase bigotry we will stop qualifying different groups all together.

If I meet a married couple, they are a married couple, I don’t care if they are black, white red or purple with orange polka dots, I don’t care if they are the same or different colors, or opposite sex, same sex or what have you, they are a just a married couple. I don’t need to pre-judge anyone based on such qualifiers, I take each person as they come.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188034 Apr 10, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had sexy with 17 I'm a week to win a bet in college.
You stud! I always had to work at it, not being a handsome man I had to do a lot of smooth talking. And I did and it worked. Thankfully women aren't as shallow as we are, they could see my inner beauty. Like Big D does!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188035 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
So what are you implying here, as a reason to disallow Same Sex marriage?
That the ability or intent to have children is somehow a requirement for a marriage?.... because you know that has already been discussed, here, and in the courts, and you know how that went.
People that don’t have the ability or intent to have children are and always have been allowed to marry, it has never ever been a requirement in any way shape or from, and so has no place in a discussion about same sex couples.
I don’t care about divorce or annulment, that requires a party in the marriage to desire a divorce or annulment, that can be achieved for no reason at all. We are talking about 2 people that want to marry, where is the law that says that if they do not have the ability or intent to have children, they are not allowed to, even though they both want to.
I really don't think anyone here has claimed that procreation is a requirement for marriage. You are creating a straw man.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188036 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I too am mixed, I am told that I have just barely enough American Indian in me to move to a reservation ( LOL ) but you would never know it to look at me, light brown ( was blond when a child ) hair and blue eyes. I have quite a bit of Scandinavian, and no small amount of German in my blood
But I am not an American Indian/Scandinavian/German-Ame rican.... Im just an American.
I think we are not doing the right thing putting the qualifiers in there, African American or Mexican American... we are just Americans, which has nothing to do with Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin.
If we are ever going to erase bigotry we will stop qualifying different groups all together.
If I meet a married couple, they are a married couple, I don’t care if they are black, white red or purple with orange polka dots, I don’t care if they are the same or different colors, or opposite sex, same sex or what have you, they are a just a married couple. I don’t need to pre-judge anyone based on such qualifiers, I take each person as they come.
Purple with orange polka dots? Oy.
DougiesKIND

San Dimas, CA

#188037 Apr 10, 2013
If you want to see what kind of trash build homes in Glendora, California 91741 then follow this link.

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2013/04/art_lov...

Since: Apr 13

Bellevue, WA

#188038 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, as long as the husbnd AND wife, regardless of their self identified sexual orientation, are present, marriage laws should be applied equally.
<quoted text>
I always found it puzzling for the need to hypenate every racial grouping, except for those of European descent. I'm the grandson of southern Italian immigrants, and yet I'm refered to as white. But if a person has a Spanish sounding sir name, regardless of how many generations they are removed for the ethnic land of origin, they are refered to as hispanic. So a person whose great great geat grandarents were from, say Mexico, is called "Hispanic" or "Latino" (Italians are latins too), yet a grandson of southern Italian immigrants, is called "white". Go figure.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm...not quite...close maybe....we both know that. Its still a same sex marriage. If there's two men/women on the license, it an SSM.
no one cares if your an ignorant bigot... that was your choice
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188039 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, as long as the husbnd AND wife, regardless of their self identified sexual orientation, are present, marriage laws should be applied equally.
.
Interesting you say that, I happen to work with a same sex legally married couple, one of them is referred to as the husband and I was introduced to her wife.

They have twin daughters that are biologically the husbands and an unknown donor ( artificial insemination ), however they have said they want to do the same for the wife as well at some point ( twins are a handful )

so.. yeah no problem, to me, they are just a married couple, regardless

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.

San Mateo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Steve Barrett (Feb '15) Thu Lauren 2
News Tesla competitor Lucid Motors picks Arizona for... Nov 30 I Got Your Jewels 5
News San Bruno snuffs out smoking: Attached unit ban... Nov 17 carol 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Nov 3 Kit_kit 125
News Valley Fire: 3 arrested in evacuated area with ... (Sep '15) Nov '16 poking sis is fun 2
News Cops take - illegal alien' notes seriously: Not... Oct '16 tomin cali 3
News Leagues gathering donations in memory of Tyler ... (Oct '08) Oct '16 mikayla 7

San Mateo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

San Mateo Mortgages