Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201864 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.

Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204165 Jul 22, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
With this post, I get a picture of a stubborn little pouting child.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204166 Jul 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry I called you a gimp the other day. It was out of line.
I doubt that he's bothered. We've all called names.
LOL.
I'd think that something was wrong if I didn't get called something, at least once a day.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204167 Jul 22, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. its not a requirment in any state. So your point of being a steril marriage hold's no any water. We don't mandate procreation in a heterosexual marriage so how can you EVEN try to in same sex marriage. Now go away you really bore me.
As to "hijack the word", look it up fool, you will find that same sex marriage is found in the deffination.
Procreation isn't the real issue. The real issue is mismatched parts.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204168 Jul 22, 2013
Amy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious he doesn't like women, he only fantasizes about male sex.
You're being silly. He is married. To a woman. Try harder, next time.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204169 Jul 22, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>I can only speculate, but it would seem that you are correct in your statement. KMare seems to only address gay men and not lesbians in his rants towards the subject of same sex marriage. One can only think that he might have been in the old rectory a few to mant times with perverted priests. That might be the problem, he is to old to be an Alter Boy. What he needs to do is accept his sexuality and be one with it. Life is to gosh darn short to live a lie. You never know when the dirt nap arrives.
Poof out.
That's because Lesbians rock.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204170 Jul 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw hell, don't be nice to me you'll ruin everything.
That's what I thought...
:-D
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204171 Jul 22, 2013
Vealed wrote:
Frankie wears a veil.
And eats Pork and veal.
Oh, I'm sure that you have told him off, properly.... I'm sure that you have him reeling, now...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204172 Jul 22, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>The man says he is sorry, and you have to be a jerk. Nice real nice
He wasn't being a jerk. An adult would have understood this.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204173 Jul 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because I let you blow me doesn't mean I let everybody. You're special Hank. You swallow good.
He'll do that, anytime he gets a tickle behind the ears...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204174 Jul 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://prospect.org/article/sl ippery-slope-polygamy-and-ince st
It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something.
You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.
The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling. Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of “fundamental rights” and equal protection. Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.
What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion.
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect,“don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Excellent job, sir.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204175 Jul 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you don't like it but you've given polygamists that "start from the ground up" already. You have paved the way.
I don't see how keeping the ban on polygamy can still be justified now that several states have abandoned the notion that heterosexual marriage is essential to social stability, why should monogamy still be insisted upon? Why is it OK to drop the gender part of "one man one woman" but not the number part?
And why can't a man marry his brother?
They won't even attempt to answer that. They can't. It isn't conducive to their views that they are the "Special" ones. They can't bring themselves to admit that fact. They're very selfish to turn their backs on others fighting the same battle.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204176 Jul 22, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Write to Boehner. See if he and the other TEAtards want to repeal the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1873. Test his metal.
That's amusing. The country needs an alternative party to rely on, and you mock them. The REAL patriots. It's no mystery why you prefer the current "stalemate" arrangement.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204177 Jul 22, 2013
I need more Lucky Charms. Give them to ME!!!!!!!!!!
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204178 Jul 22, 2013
MORE!!! I need MORE!!!
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204179 Jul 22, 2013
Who was the numbskull that replied to my post the other day? the post about how race is hidden, when it involves "African-Americans"? The poster that posted that they hide all race?
This one's for you, asshat:

"Police in Washington state were searching for a convicted felon suspected of shooting and killing his girlfriend's 4-year-old son Sunday, police said.
The boy, whose name hasn't been released, was shot Sunday morning at the woman's home in Sedro-Woolley, in northern Washington, police told NBC station KING of Seattle. He died at Skagit Valley Hospital in Mount Vernon.
Sedro-Woolley Police Chief Doug Wood told The Skagit Valley Herald of Mount Vernon that the shooting was being investigated as a homicide.
Investigators were searching for Trevor Braymiller, 25, described as a white male, about 5 feet, 8 inches tall, weighing 165 pounds, with brown hair and "scruffy" facial hair. Police said he was last seen wearing a bright red or orange shirt."

From:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/21/19...

Don't try to argue with the master. You'll lose, every time...
:-D
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204180 Jul 22, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
Who was the numbskull that replied to my post the other day? the post about how race is hidden, when it involves "African-Americans"? The poster that posted that they hide all race?
This one's for you, asshat:
"Police in Washington state were searching for a convicted felon suspected of shooting and killing his girlfriend's 4-year-old son Sunday, police said.
The boy, whose name hasn't been released, was shot Sunday morning at the woman's home in Sedro-Woolley, in northern Washington, police told NBC station KING of Seattle. He died at Skagit Valley Hospital in Mount Vernon.
Sedro-Woolley Police Chief Doug Wood told The Skagit Valley Herald of Mount Vernon that the shooting was being investigated as a homicide.
Investigators were searching for Trevor Braymiller, 25, described as a white male, about 5 feet, 8 inches tall, weighing 165 pounds, with brown hair and "scruffy" facial hair. Police said he was last seen wearing a bright red or orange shirt."
From:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/21/19...
Don't try to argue with the master. You'll lose, every time...
:-D
Oh look! I'm judged "nuts" for providing hard evidence of the truth of my posts.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204181 Jul 22, 2013
Why doesn't your pitiful ass throw out a posts that reads: " Nuh-uh."? Or something equally infantile?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204182 Jul 22, 2013
If it had been a neg..."African-American ", then it would have read: "The suspect was described as having dark skin..." or something equally vague, so as to confuse us. Imply that it was, maybe, an arab or a hispanic, or something...
Too Right

Wooster, OH

#204183 Jul 22, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
If it had been a neg..."African-American ", then it would have read: "The suspect was described as having dark skin..." or something equally vague, so as to confuse us. Imply that it was, maybe, an arab or a hispanic, or something...
Got that right.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204184 Jul 22, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because Lesbians rock.
I see. Lesbians DON'T rock?

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
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 min Chosen Traveler 29,961
News Whittier City Council approves noise ordinance (Dec '09) 17 hr Duey 6
News Honk: Are those 'Children at Play' signs legal? (Feb '11) Jul '15 Thankful I live i... 90
News Felon Arraigned on Assault, Robbery, Attempted ... Jun '15 Larry Miller 1
do you notice more black people in brea? Jun '15 No black people here 3
... just 'cause I can ... Jun '15 just cause 3
News Unions representing federal scientists protest ... May '15 innocent youth ca... 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brea Mortgages