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

#204395 Jul 24, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The distinction exists only in your head. Because your a moron.
*you're
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204396 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You hit the point right on the head!
My wife means more to me than our ability to have children
My wife means more to me than sex
I would stay with my wife regardless of our ability to have children, or even the ability to have sex.
Our marriage means a whole lot more to us than that.
It makes me sad that some of these people cannot think past the biological function, that their marriages mean no more to them than that alone.
No wonder they think that same sex couples marrying will weaken their marriages, their marriages are so weak to start with.
Oh spare us.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204397 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that laughed, and so did you, thank you for validating my point.
My point was that you are a vindictive. And yes I did validate it.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#204398 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, marriage has always defined a distinct relationship among all cultures.
You mean like when marriage defined the wife as property of the husband? Like that "distinct" relationship?! I love when fundies try and rewrite history in order to justify their agendas!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws limited involvement has historically been directly related to procreation within marriage.
Doubtful, but even if, so what? Historical context is irrelevant. It always will be. You have no argument.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That potential has never needed a 'demand'.
More importantly, that potential has never been a necessity.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why marriage needs protection to prevent procreation where ss couples need protection to HAVE sex.
BBBZZZZZTTTTTT. Utter bullshyt alert. If marriage needed protection, then those arguing for your side would be able to demonstrate what it needs protection from. To date they have been completely unable to do that.

Your creepy obsession with gay people's sex needs no comment.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Courts are denying the essence of marriage in the face of a massive denial and herd mentality.
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.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
We simply and honestly point out the distinctions between the relationships and the consequences of that denial.
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.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are terrified people will wake up.
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.

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. 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!!!!

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!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204400 Jul 24, 2013
Many people are wary of this tremendous social change. While Big D thinks it appropriate to laugh at them, SCOTUS doesn't.

They politely laughed at a bad joke about old people procreating. They didn't laugh at the idea that marriage often involves having children no matter how hard Big D attempts to spin it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204401 Jul 24, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Y I love when fundies try and rewrite history in order to justify their agendas!!!
No you don't. You hate it, liar.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#204403 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You hit the point right on the head!
My wife means more to me than our ability to have children
My wife means more to me than sex
I would stay with my wife regardless of our ability to have children, or even the ability to have sex.
Our marriage means a whole lot more to us than that.
It makes me sad that some of these people cannot think past the biological function, that their marriages mean no more to them than that alone.
No wonder they think that same sex couples marrying will weaken their marriages, their marriages are so weak to start with.
I simply deny the marriages of fundamentalists. They serve no purpose to humanity, and their mutually duplicated religious sterility is a mutation of humanity!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204404 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
You sure are. Did you stay up all night hoping to prove me wrong about what a plain glazed doughnut looks like? Yep. That's what you did and it's certainly moronic.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#204405 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A gay in a dress who thinks denial and vulgarity make an argument, and a piece of paper makes a marriage.
So silly honey.
The only one in denial honeypie is you. That's why you can't address specifics. It's why you have to make up pretend phrases and words. You got nothing. You never will!! Smile.

Who's in a dress, and who said a piece of paper makes a marriage?

Damn you are sad!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204406 Jul 24, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply deny the marriages of fundamentalists. They serve no purpose to humanity, and their mutually duplicated religious sterility is a mutation of humanity!
Marriage is good for society. All consenting adult marriages. Even yours. And yes, even the dreaded fundies.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204407 Jul 24, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only one in denial honeypie is you. That's why you can't address specifics. It's why you have to make up pretend phrases and words. You got nothing. You never will!! Smile.
Who's in a dress, and who said a piece of paper makes a marriage?
Damn you are sad!!
"Damn you are sad!!" Jonah1 taunted, sadly.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204408 Jul 24, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply deny the marriages of fundamentalists. They serve no purpose to humanity, and their mutually duplicated religious sterility is a mutation of humanity!
LOL, I have often thought that the only way to show them what it is they are doing is to deny their right to marry.

However, two wrongs done make a right, so I have not gone there and I don’t actually want that to happen.

But it would drive the point home.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204409 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Many people are wary of this tremendous social change. While Big D thinks it appropriate to laugh at them, SCOTUS doesn't.
They politely laughed at a bad joke about old people procreating. They didn't laugh at the idea that marriage often involves having children no matter how hard Big D attempts to spin it.
Yes.. I said they laughed, you said they laughed, thank you for validating my point.

It is a funny position to take, and one without merit.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204410 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.. I said they laughed, you said they laughed, thank you for validating my point.
It is a funny position to take, and one without merit.
They politely laughed at a bad joke about old people procreating, they did not laugh at fellow Americans.

And they did not laugh at the notion that marriage often involves having children, no matter how hard you try to spin it that they did.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204411 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I have often thought that the only way to show them what it is they are doing is to deny their right to marry.
However, two wrongs done make a right, so I have not gone there and I don’t actually want that to happen.
But it would drive the point home.
If you would stop being vengeful, this social change you desire so badly will happen faster. Why alienate and marginalize fellow Americans just because they are wary of this tremendous social change? You are part of the problem.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204412 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
They politely laughed at a bad joke about old people procreating, they did not laugh at fellow Americans.
And they did not laugh at the notion that marriage often involves having children, no matter how hard you try to spin it that they did.
Yes I said they laughed, you said they laughed, thank you for making my point.

Marriage often involves having children, but it not any kind of requirement.

Marriage often involves home ownership, but it is not any kind of requirement.

Marriage often involves same sex relations, but is not any kind of requirement.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204413 Jul 24, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply deny the marriages of fundamentalists. They serve no purpose to humanity, and their mutually duplicated religious sterility is a mutation of humanity!
And they simply deny your marriage. You are both wrong.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204414 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I said they laughed, you said they laughed, thank you for making my point.
Marriage often involves having children, but it not any kind of requirement.
Marriage often involves home ownership, but it is not any kind of requirement.
Marriage often involves same sex relations, but is not any kind of requirement.
They politely laughed at a bad joke. They didn't laugh at married people having children.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204417 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
They politely laughed at a bad joke. They didn't laugh at married people having children.
I said they laughed, you said they laughed, thank you for validating my point
Pietro Armando

Clinton, MA

#204418 Jul 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Kennedy himself even brought up the issue of children. He said that children are placed at a disadvantage by not allowing their same-gender parent's marriage to be legally recognized.
What disadvantages would they be?
He addressed the fact that children of same-gender parents do not feel that their families are equal to other legally married couples.
So a Supreme Court Justice is addressing feelings? Children of "same gendered parents" do not feel their families are equal to other legally married couples? Is it perhaps they feel a sense of loss for their opposite sex biological parent?
He gave examples of how insurance coverage for children are at risk.
He also talked about how social security death benefits are not applied to children of same-gender married couples.
Exactly how are the children "of" same gender parents? Are there not children similarly situated in regards to social security death benefits?
And finally, he talked about how certain laws make crime against Federal Agents and their families a much more serious offense. These laws are set up to deter criminals from targeting Federal Agents and their families. With DOMA, same-gender married couples and their children weren't protected by such laws.
So, Kennedy absolutely had children in mind when he wrote his decision.
Did he? Is he willing to address the needs of children in other situations, plural marriage families, for example?

Sounds like the groundwork is being established for the legalization of plural marriage.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Trump victory, the threat to California's g... 1 min Philosophic 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 230,969
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Moans6157 62,300
News OK, so, pota s legal. Now what? 7 hr ThomasA 18
News California attorney general pick pledges affron... 8 hr Humps4061 14
News Group says it has sued Dow over pesticide used ... Thu ThomasA 3
News University of California digs in to fight Trump... Thu tomin cali 1
More from around the web