Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 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.

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

Hoboken, 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

Union City, CA

#182046 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Letís 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

Union City, 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

Union City, 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 doesnít 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

Union City, 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 doesnít 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

Union City, 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

Hoboken, 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 canít 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

Hoboken, 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

Hoboken, 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.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182058 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's substitutue polygamy for sequestering and see if the GOP will buy it.
ROFL!!

Actually quite a number of the republican leadership is jumping onto the issue opposed to Prop 8.

A few are starting to realize that party HAS to change if they ever want to win an election to high office ever again.

You cant divide yourself into a majority.

There isnít much talk any more about cleansing out RINOís, and more talk about how they can include more people. That is why the Tea Party is losing influence fast.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182059 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Clint was first, like a true conservative.
Yes....He was married twice and has seven children by five different women.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182060 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Yes....He was married twice and has seven children by five different women.
Why is that important?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182061 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
He is going to be one sad puppy in June when 8 gets overturned and nothing is mentioned about Polygamy.

But there will likely be a lot of sad puppies, the way things are going, I am starting to think it is going to be a broad ruling, and the end of DOMA
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182062 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He is going to be one sad puppy in June when 8 gets overturned and nothing is mentioned about Polygamy.
But there will likely be a lot of sad puppies, the way things are going, I am starting to think it is going to be a broad ruling, and the end of DOMA
I won't be sad, I support marriage equality and you know it, liar Big D.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182063 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's substitutue polygamy for sequestering and see if the GOP will buy it.
I am a life long conservative democrat. A registered Democrat since 1969. I support marriage for every adult who wants a family and you do not.

Marriage is good for society, even marriages bigots don't approve of.

And besides, seeing a happy family makes me happy, Be they OSM, SSM or poly 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.

Emeryville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 12 hr Chuck 19,892
Benicia - Best place to raise a family? (May '07) 18 hr BizOwner 35
News Al Gore: "I Could Become Catholic Because of Th... 19 hr Earl the Pearl 11
How to Convert Sony Handycam MTS to MP4 on PC/M... Sun aivian 3
2015 Oakland Murders May 2 Inglewood92 7
May Day rallies broaden to address police bruta... May 2 Say What 2
Habit Burger Apr 30 A Thought 3
More from around the web

Emeryville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]