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.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182038 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? What don't you understand about "marriage is a man and a woman" only?
Don't hog the victimhood. There's plenty to go around.
Is it possible that the intent was, marriage is between male and female?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182039 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>State laws?? Ummm google it, there are a number that do. DOMA, restricts benefits based on sexuality. DUH
DOMA is equally discriminatory against polyamorists wishing to marry.

By eliminating prop 8 there will be one less law against polygamy, no matter how hard you try to spin it that there won't be.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182040 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Is it possible that the intent was, marriage is between male and female?
"A" male and "A" female. Does it say "males and females" dummy? No it says "A" male and "A" female as in one of each only.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182041 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
A blow to equal rights is a blow to everyone. Maybe you don't fully understand that?
Prop 8 victimized polygamy and SSM EQUALLY. And it victimized us all in restricting rights.
When they come to take your neighbor...(I hope you know the rest).
Let’s try again

What rights did polygamists lose when prop 8 passed?

It is a simple question
Checked

Covina, CA

#182042 Mar 1, 2013
Ever since the voters have finally been told gthe turth about what the GOP, Republicans and Tea Party member's did tot he sates econlmy and the federal budget all heck has broken lose.

California voters have a sour outlook about the state's economy, estimated 72 percent of California voters say the economy is mired in "bad times.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182043 Mar 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who or what determines if there is "legitimate state interest"?
the Court.
Chair backed

Covina, CA

#182044 Mar 1, 2013
Clints back in town so look out, P.S. has anyone got an empty chair?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182045 Mar 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Admittedly, this is a serious accusation. Yet I think it can proven with a simple test: Ask Judge Walker if his reasoning applies to polygamous marriage.
Of course! Because we all know that "substitute polygamy" is the gold standard for determining what is logical.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182046 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Let’s try again
What rights did polygamists lose when prop 8 passed?
It is a simple question
One more law against it. It's a simple answer.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182047 Mar 1, 2013
Chair backed wrote:
Clints back in town so look out, P.S. has anyone got an empty chair?
Obama finally evolved into the empty chair. Clint was first, like a true conservative. Obama waited to see which way the political wind was blowing like a true liberal.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182048 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Of course! Because we all know that "substitute polygamy" is the gold standard for determining what is logical.
Insisting prop 8 doesn't effect polygamy is not logical.
Linguine

Covina, CA

#182049 Mar 1, 2013
To the meat balls, pack it in.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182050 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
One more law against it. It's a simple answer.
No it was both illegal before and after, zero affect, no impact

try again

there is a correct answer, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Polygamy
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182051 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama finally evolved into the empty chair. Clint was first, like a true conservative. Obama waited to see which way the political wind was blowing like a true liberal.
Palin/Eastwood 2016

( oh please , oh please ):D
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182052 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No it was both illegal before and after, zero affect, no impact
try again
there is a correct answer, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Polygamy
One more law against polygamy has zero effect on polygamy? Try again.

"Marriage is a man and a woman" doesn't have anything to do with polygamy? Does it say "men and women" or does it say "A man and A woman"? Try again.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#182053 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Palin/Eastwood 2016
( oh please , oh please ):D
Clint Eastwood is a great actor, writer and director. Palin is silly.

We need a LEADER. A man on a white horse. Not on a political bandwagon.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182054 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Insisting prop 8 doesn't effect polygamy is not logical.
Let's substitutue polygamy for sequestering and see if the GOP will buy it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182055 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Clint Eastwood is a great actor, writer and director. Palin is silly.
We need a LEADER. A man on a white horse. Not on a political bandwagon.
You can’t get to that office without being on a political bandwagon, sad but true.... I wish it was otherwise.

I enjoy Clint's films, very impressed with Million dollar baby, and Gran Torino.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182056 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Insisting prop 8 doesn't effect polygamy is not logical.
How could it affect polygamy if polygamy was already illegal? Oh, I see..... the ol' double illegal... got it.

From the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling:


We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships.

Well what do you know..... The California Supreme Court said what?????

You've been paying too much attention to that flaming idiot Bill O'Reilly.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182057 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Insisting prop 8 doesn't effect polygamy is not logical.
Tell that to the California Supreme Court.

Of course, it is SO obvious that they don't know what they're talking about and should ask YOU for legal advice..... yeah, right.

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.

Brea Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 8 hr lmsa dad 6,871
News Heroin Highway - Map of heroin traffic in Santa... (May '10) 13 hr Tourist in Anaheim 26
ssk gangsters (Jan '13) 14 hr Bby sleepy 139
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 15 hr Trojan 32,604
News MATTIS: The Iraq war was a 'strategic mistake' 16 hr Stephany McDowell 1
News Gang member gets 40 to life for shooting father... (Apr '10) Mon Esbp 359
News Gang Injunction Issued In Crack Down On Anaheim... (Mar '08) Mon Esbp 574

Brea Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brea Mortgages