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
159,601 - 159,620 of 200,361 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182769
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Randy-Rock-Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays ARE protected, under the law, same as any other American. But they are not entitled to rewrite the dictionary, at our expense, simply in order to qualify for government benefits. This is not protection. And if you think that your vote counts for anything, guess again ...
Words are dynamic. The "dictionary" gets rewritten on a somewhat regular basis.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182770
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Words are dynamic. The "dictionary" gets rewritten on a somewhat regular basis.
As does the constitution

27 times so far
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182773
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey spacker, marriage isn't a natural thing. It is a construct of man. It also isn't the only building block of society.
What a mong.
Thank you for that.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182774
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey spacker, marriage isn't a natural thing. It is a construct of man. It also isn't the only building block of society.
What a mong.
Are you belittling the scarcity of my goldfish that had a beautiful marriage ceremony last week?

( wait, they are both female… maybe they dont know about Prop 8 )

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182775
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
Stupid, don't engage in vague fear mongering, tell us what effect it can have.
KiMare wrote:
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option.
Moreover, gay couples produce nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Additionally, rights are distinguished in law. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.
LOL! A thing like you talking about natural design! You are totally screwed up. Two sets of DNA, two different types of tissue you are a failure AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.

A thing like you is proof god does not exist.
Do you think you should have been aborted?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182776
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Randy-Rock-Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you spend so much time answering questions with questions?
What are you talking about?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182777
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

barrack obama wrote:
ive donated over 400 million to san fransisco this year for people to have free sex cahnges ...this cult that forced over 800 million people into sex changes operated in africa and south america any poor country..abducting people changeing their aperance and replaceing their memorys with fake child hood memorys and phographs......jones town was real sex changes are real ....this is documented by untied nations and every government on the planet knows about people being forced into sex changes
Ah...so this is why we have the "nuts" judge-it icon.
BeekerBeeker

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182778
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Personally I don't care what they do with the Glednora, California Taco Bell as long as the employees are taken care of however, I am beginning to find the ad at the top of the page for Dominance by Equinox a bit distracting.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182779
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah...so this is why we have the "nuts" judge-it icon.
lol

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182780
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither do post menopausal women, sterile people and people who have been "fixed"... yet they are allowed to marry....
They've always been allowed to marry. Why is it an issue now? Its been allowed since the advent of marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182781
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history. No fault divorce has fatally fractured the family. Abortion has 'protected the mother' at the expense of her child. Just two examples.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option. According to the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbian couples rate last, AFTER single parents!
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Finally, rights are protected by law, it has no power to create. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION. Calling gay couples married is an imposition of an imposter relationship, hardly just or consistent.
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation."
Wrong... there are 11 species of animals which mate for life... which is basically what marriage is about. Funny how you bring nature into this since there are over 1500 species of animals that have homosexuals in them... which, while not common, makes homosexuality a natural phenomenon.
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution."
Neither do post menopausal women, sterile people and people who have been "fixed"... yet they are allowed to marry....
Out of literally millions of animal species, you note eleven (11), yes, eleven species that mate for life.

What you fail to note is that for humans the constraint of marriage flies in the face of evolutionary mating behavior. A drive that is equated to the desire for food, water and air.

Now ask yourself, "Why do we constrain such a powerful drive with marriage?"

Second, scientists have no clear means of judging animal orientation. Moreover, they know that some same sex sexual behavior (SSSB, yes, that is the term scientists use) in numerous species, is clearly not homosexual, but motivated by other purposes.

Which brings us to your attempt to equate an absolute genetic defect with animals, human aging, birth defects and deliberate sterilization. Simply silly stupid.

Here is an analogy of the difference between the rare occasion of childless marriages (96% of marriages historically procreate) and the 100% desolate barrenness of mutual procreation in gay relationships;

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Smirk.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182782
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct!
Alas that the court has become so political.
But I expect them to do the right thing regardless.
Don't u mean the left thing?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182783
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
They've always been allowed to marry. Why is it an issue now? Its been allowed since the advent of marriage.
You are the one making reproduction an issue. If it wasn't before, since the advent of marriage, then why are you making it an issue now?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182784
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't u mean the left thing?
lol

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182785
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option.
Moreover, gay couples produce nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Additionally, rights are distinguished in law. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey spacker, marriage isn't a natural thing. It is a construct of man. It also isn't the only building block of society.
What a mong.
I didn't say it was. I said 'at the fundamental level of natural design and primary function, ie marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a direct defective failure of the very primary goal of evolution, literally 'unmarriage'.

Second, I said 'marriage is the only NATURAL building block of society. As SCOTUS has noted many times, procreation within marriage is the best by far setting for the raising children. The very next default setting is quickly a drastic drop in the social health of children. And in the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbians came in last. AFTER single parents! Gay couples didn't even rate!!!

Next.

Snicker.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182786
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option.
Moreover, gay couples produce nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Additionally, rights are distinguished in law. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION.
<quoted text>
I didn't say it was. I said 'at the fundamental level of natural design and primary function, ie marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a direct defective failure of the very primary goal of evolution, literally 'unmarriage'.
Second, I said 'marriage is the only NATURAL building block of society. As SCOTUS has noted many times, procreation within marriage is the best by far setting for the raising children. The very next default setting is quickly a drastic drop in the social health of children. And in the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbians came in last. AFTER single parents! Gay couples didn't even rate!!!
Next.
Snicker.
What you said was:
"Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society."

I replied by saying it was a creation of man. Which ain't natural by most lines of thinking.

Dumdum. It is right up there in plain sight. I dunno why you'd try to deny what you said. Unless you're of the mind that once you turn the page your blatherings are lost in the ether.

The rest of your ramblings are pure idiocy. Verbose attempts to sound as if you're intelligent. Clearly you aren't.

Evolution is a series of accidents. Some survive, some don't. The environment of the time influences what survives. Sickle cell anemia is a clear example of this.

You may not insert your head into the usual location.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182787
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>lol
Does that mean Xbox found my response funny?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182788
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one making reproduction an issue. If it wasn't before, since the advent of marriage, then why are you making it an issue now?
It wasn't questioned before. Did anyone seriously doubt the link between procreation and marriage before the onset of SSM?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182789
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you belittling the scarcity of my goldfish that had a beautiful marriage ceremony last week?
( wait, they are both female… maybe they dont know about Prop 8 )
Let be guess....the bride and groom wore tails.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182790
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history. No fault divorce has fatally fractured the family. Abortion has 'protected the mother' at the expense of her child. Just two examples.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option. According to the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbian couples rate last, AFTER single parents!
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Finally, rights are protected by law, it has no power to create. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION. Calling gay couples married is an imposition of an imposter relationship, hardly just or consistent.
<quoted text>
Out of literally millions of animal species, you note eleven (11), yes, eleven species that mate for life.
What you fail to note is that for humans the constraint of marriage flies in the face of evolutionary mating behavior. A drive that is equated to the desire for food, water and air.
Now ask yourself, "Why do we constrain such a powerful drive with marriage?"
Second, scientists have no clear means of judging animal orientation. Moreover, they know that some same sex sexual behavior (SSSB, yes, that is the term scientists use) in numerous species, is clearly not homosexual, but motivated by other purposes.
Which brings us to your attempt to equate an absolute genetic defect with animals, human aging, birth defects and deliberate sterilization. Simply silly stupid.
Here is an analogy of the difference between the rare occasion of childless marriages (96% of marriages historically procreate) and the 100% desolate barrenness of mutual procreation in gay relationships;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smirk.
Calling you a human is the imposition of an impostor thing hardly just or consistent.

BTW, you can't make a good analogy. The ability to produce apples is part of the definition of an apple tree. In fact, it pretty much is the definition, a tree that produces apples. But, the ability to produce offspring is not part of the definition of marriage.
Can you come up with a reason you should not have been aborted?

LOL!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••

Inglewood News Video

•••
•••

Inglewood Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Inglewood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Inglewood News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Inglewood
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••