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
183,061 - 183,080 of 200,593 Comments Last updated 10 hrs ago
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210963 Aug 19, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
I've had short replies disappear.
Kookla is just trying to be relevant. Apparently, "Fck off" wasn't working for him....
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210964 Aug 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) When listing a series of opinions, maybe consider taking the time to list them as bullet points.
2.) So, all of the children born outside of wedlock aren't children? What are they?
They aren't little "know-it-alls" and "holier-than-thou" types, like you are....
"Bullet points"....guffaw..
suzanne henderson

El Dorado Hills, CA

#210965 Aug 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So those people who live in areas of the world where Christianity is either unheard of or forbidden are just out of luck? You believe that they live in "confusion" and incapable of being touched by the Holy Spirit?
I simply do not agree, Suzanne.
That is fine that you disagree, but I would like to quote a couple of verses found in Romans Chapter 1 Verses 18-20 and I quote: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Thank you for your comment.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210966 Aug 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet there are many many cultures that could say all that for slavery
Just because something was true in the past, doesn't make it a good thing
Neither is it dismissable, just to satisfy the cravings of a few (very) abberants. The past had all sorts of good things to offer....Toilet paper, for one. Medical advancement, for another. Need I go on?
KiMare made his point, as usual. Gays have never been accepted as a valid coupling. Until we came along, with our "exploitable" Constitution. Given loopholes, the gays are advancing. Our Framers left us open to this, due to the fact that they never foresaw the insanity coming our way.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210967 Aug 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Because people can be really opinionated horses asses.
NEXT!
"Next"? Are you serious? If you don't like the majority having the majority say, then might I suggest that you find somewhere else to defile? WE have every right to say what WE will allow and what WE won't. You're like a bum getting on the bus, driving everyone else off, due to his effluvia, and not giving a rats ass about how he smells.

Damn...."the majority is a bunch of opinionated horses asses." Damn....
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210968 Aug 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Understood. Grazie
<quoted text>
They'll still children Big Red. The point is marriage is the means by which society regulates in a way the sexual, potentially procreative, union of men and women. Its not a stand alone means for adult happiness.
Nicely said. Todays "SSM" is a means to personal gratification, not meant to promote the common welfare.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#210969 Aug 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I said marriage is a necessary constraint for mating behavior.
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Mating behavior happens just fine without marriage. Your necessity is completely made up.
Today's fairytale hour has been brought to you by Gregory Kirschmann, everyone's favorite nincompoop!
I didn't say mating behavior didn't happen just fine.

The fact that it does necessitates a framework to deal with the results of mating behavior. Even an idiot knows that!

However a ss couple claiming to be married doesn't understand that, because their mating behavior is defective. It only results in reamed a//es. I suspect that is why you are so angry.

But the bottom line is you not only don't need the constraint of marriage, you don't qualify.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210970 Aug 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You know Christianity is not the cause but you can say it is because he blamed it on the wrong cause too.
Priceless.
I did? What was the cause, as you see it? I think that there were many reasons, and splitting the Empire was another that i didn't mention.
sheesh

Oakton, VA

#210971 Aug 19, 2013
suzanne henderson wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your response. I do not agree because there is no inbetween, you are either for Christ or against Christ. You either believe in His Word or you do not, for those who do not ahere to His teachings must not like him very much because they have no fear of what God will do to them in the end of the world. They have that chance to receive until their death, but I personally would not wait because they do not know when your end will come.
What then is to become of the Jews? Will Jesus abandon his own people?

What of the numerous Christian faiths that believe theirs is the one true religion. All of them accept Jesus Christ as Savior, but many think theirs is the one true religion.
Where is my deceased father, a devout Methodist? Where will my mother, a devout Methodist go? What of my oldest brother, changed to the Baptist faith by marriage? My sister, somewhere in between Baptist and Methodist? My next oldest brother, still deeply faithful but wandering from the Methodist Church we grew up in? And my slightly older brother, gone to the Pentecostal Church by marriage?

You enter my church the moment you walk out of your house. What is to become of me?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210972 Aug 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Now quote the case where people were refused a marriage license because they lacked either the intent, or ability to have children.
There are millions of such cases in the US, show me the case where one of them was refused a marriage license.
Lack of fertility used to be a cause for annulment. But, as the rational reasons for marriage have been swept away, this is no longer allowed to be relevant. Your incessant lobbying has seen to that.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210973 Aug 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I know, I donít have a problem with most Christians
But most Christians do not try and preach to my children and grandchildren without my or their parents consent, they donít belittle people different than themselves, I know quite a few that supported same sex marriage.
The problem is, most Christians, are not the "vocal" Christians that are giving Christianity a bad name.
I do see that you recognize this.
And, I don't have any problems with most of the gays, either. But (to paraphrase)But most gays do not try and preach to my children and grandchildren without my, or their parents, consent, they donít belittle people who have different opinions than themselves, I know quite a few them think that they have a right to speak to my kids in 1st grade about sexual matters, but they have no right to do so.

I imagine that it's now time to rip "my" argument apart... Now that the shoe has found itself on the other foot....

And, I don't think that it's correct to eliminate the gender barriers in school restrooms. I know that Chongo and I had differences about this exact issue. It would seem that Chongo has gotten its way...
In my opinion, they need to build alternate facilities for the 3rd type of kids, the "mixed up" signs can't be that expensive to produce. They have no right to force themselves into restrooms for the normal kids, the ones who had no issues, up until now...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210974 Aug 19, 2013
Popess wrote:
Saudi King Demands UN Resolution Condemning Religious Insults.
Go jam sand up your oil pipe Saudi puke.
I certainly hope that he intends for Christianity to be a protected class, as well....
Maybe they can stop vilifying Christians....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#210975 Aug 19, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I refer to this as the "why must you change the definition of voting?"
If you are going to say that woman voting is the same as men voting, they why is there then not one similar example of a proportionate presence of women voting in even ONE culture from start to finish of the culture's existence like men voting has?
More fairy tales from Greggie!!
<quoted text>
Why is there then not one similar example of the acceptance of inter-racial 'marriage' in even ONE culture from the start to finish of the culture's existence like same race marriage has?
Ooooh, do keep those fairy tales coming Greggie!!
<quoted text>
Why is there not one geographical location, where handicap rights established a foothold, held and spread like other rights did?
Keep 'em rolling Greggie!
<quoted text>
There is historical evidence of a brief and rare presence of various religious cults in a few cultures, but they NEVER took root and spread. Why?
My goodness, fairytale hour sure is fun today Greggie!
<quoted text>
In fact, there is also historical evidence that even when inter-racial 'marriage' did begin to show up, it was resisted.
Historical context. The argument of idiots. Smirk.
1. Not true and hardly equal. There are immensely far more examples of women being able to vote than there are of ss marriage.

Moreover, you would think there would at least be examples of gay couples, using your example of women.

2. There are examples of interracial marriage in numerous cultures from start to finish. Which only makes the lack of ss couples all the more striking!

3. Again, there are numerous examples of rights for the handicapped in many cultures throughout history. In fact, I think there should be sexually handicapped rights for GLBT's!

4. Now you have gone from ignorant to silly stupid. Belief systems rise and fall on their merit. Hence a few religions have survived. However, not one example of ss couples. While EVERY SINGLE CULTURE IN HUMAN HISTORY HAS MARRIAGE FROM START TO FINISH!

That is incredibly profound! Every single one from start to finish. And not ONE single culture with ss couples being called marriage.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210976 Aug 19, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Historical context is the argument of fools. Women can vote, blacks are free and gays can marry. Sorry that disappoints you so.
<quoted text>
You are correct. No wrist splitting needed since Prop 8 is dead.
<quoted text>
Your belief that you define what is normal doesn't bother me at all! It simply makes you look pathetic and sad.
<quoted text>
Why did you switch from normal to norm? They are two different things. Desperate much?!
<quoted text>
Wow. Rant much? Hon, I have no fears about being gay. What a stupid comment. You're beginning to sound as stupid as Brian_G the village idiot. There is nothing factual in your last statement whatsoever. Do you like making a dumbass out of yourself? Sure seems that way.
Historical context is fully relevant, except to idiots, like you, that wish to eliminate wisdom, in order to pave the way for ignorance. We can see how the wisdom that we have collected, over eons, has given you obstacles. Sorry 'bout that...

We do define what normnal is, it is your task to attempt to dispute it. Sorry 'bout that, too....

Splitting hairs is a mark of losing an argument.

Rants? Where? Oh, you might be ranting, but we understand your flaws...

No-one fears your being gay, any more than we fear dog poo. We don't fear it, but no-one is going to play in it, either, without some sort of break from reality...

It sure seems that you need someone to insult, in order to make any kind of a weak point.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#210977 Aug 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then let me make a recommendation to those of you who wish to tie children so closely to matrimony. The following regulations should be initiated immediately:
1.) Mandate that all potential married couples be thoroughly examined by a medical doctor to be sure that they are capable of having children. Any couples who are found to be infertile should be denied a license to wed.
2.) Create a licensing process that mandates all potential married couples agree to have at least one child by a certain date. If the couple does not produce an offspring by a certain time, then the marriage will be nullified. Couples who have repeated miscarriages would be given a specific period of time to treat the causes. If the miscarriages continue to happen then the marriage should be nullified.
3.) Potential married couples and married couples who cannot conceive within a certain period of time must agree to adopt a child within a certain period of time. If they fail the adoption screening or for any reason refuse to adopt a child then the marriage should be nullified.
4.) Married couples should have their marriages nullified the moment their youngest child moves out onto their own.
5.) The U.S. population should be closely monitored for a drop in birthrates. If birthrates fall below a certain point then single, heterosexual individuals should be mandated to marry and procreate. If the population raises above a to-be-determined point then all marriage licenses should be stopped. Couples found to have children out of wedlock should be heavily fined.
Sounds like a plan... Why don't you guys get right on it?
Again, why mandate something married couples have to use protection to prevent???

Never been a problem.

Except for gay couples must use protection to have abusive intercourse.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#210978 Aug 19, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not aware that any of the amendments and statutes are referred to legislatively as a DOMA. I'll concede the point to you since you seem to think you're an expert and quite frankly I don't care. They won't be around long enough for me to worry about them.
You can't even concede a point with grace, can you? You're just a shabby little person, ain'tcha?
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#210979 Aug 19, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
"Next"? Are you serious? If you don't like the majority having the majority say, then might I suggest that you find somewhere else to defile? WE have every right to say what WE will allow and what WE won't. You're like a bum getting on the bus, driving everyone else off, due to his effluvia, and not giving a rats ass about how he smells.
Damn...."the majority is a bunch of opinionated horses asses." Damn....
They whine about the way our government is supposed to be run but still abuse the crap out of the system, I don't get it!
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#210980 Aug 19, 2013
WHY VOTE wrote:
Ok, I don't really care if same sex people get married or are together in any capacity. I am for equal rights BUT.......... I am very annoyed that peoples votes don't mean anything anymore. What happened to a majority vote rules? What happened to the peoples voice?
My stance on this has nothing to do with same sex couples. This is just the latest thing a court has overturned or blocked that THE PEOPLE voted for. Look at AZ., look back at prop. 187 which would have saved is billions in illegal immigrant funding. The people of the USA are trying to make changes to better our country and the few judges are effectively disenfranchising us.
Again this is not directed at same sex couples it is major frustration over the majority loosing there voice.
WHY VOTE????
Post # 10 on this insane ride, we knew what the problem was from the beginning.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#210981 Aug 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So those people who live in areas of the world where Christianity is either unheard of or forbidden are just out of luck? You believe that they live in "confusion" and incapable of being touched by the Holy Spirit?
I simply do not agree, Suzanne.
I'm not going to neurotically count your posts like you did mine but you sure post way more than I do, fruitcake!

Why, let's just count your posts today for example...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#210982 Aug 19, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of fertility used to be a cause for annulment. But, as the rational reasons for marriage have been swept away, this is no longer allowed to be relevant. Your incessant lobbying has seen to that.
You can get a divorce or annulment for no reason at all, zero.

Show me the case in the US where a marriage license was refused because of a couples inability or lack of intent to have children

Or show me a case in the US where the state stepped in and forced an annulment against the wishes of both parties because of the inability or intent to have children.

Otherwise, the entire procreation argument is dead, simply does not apply

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.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Looking for pain relief and or m-done 58 min z bot 1
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 6 hr Bently 18,880
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 10 hr go away 5,007
Justin Bieber had a brush with police officers ... 11 hr aali31 2
chuck lorre or borre 13 hr ubietron 1
a couple of dude's, Arnie & Nick 14 hr ubietron 1
harrison ford donate's 14 hr ubietron 1
•••

Beverly Hills News Video

•••
•••

Beverly Hills Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Beverly Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Beverly Hills
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••