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 (Page 8,303)

Showing posts 166,041 - 166,060 of200,319
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190179
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

marcus wrote:
<quoted text>
Simmer down there, queer-o. You two need to get a room and take it there.
Try and control yourself swizzlestick.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190180
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee.... why do you bother to get out of bed in the mornings if you are so afraid of the unknown. What a wuss.
Where did he say he was afraid of the unknown Miss Thing?
destinythecreato rr

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190181
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Awww but my friend is bi

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190182
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

For those whom are too lazy to look it up themselves.

"
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." US Constitution Article III
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190183
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

destinythecreatorr wrote:
Awww but my friend is bi
That's nice fruitcake. Go play with him on the 5.
Mike the Pike

Nelson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190184
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Next thing you know, marriage will be between a man and his dog!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190185
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
ARe you serious??? Hollywood is the basis of your counter? That's priceless.
Do you understand your choice of example only validates the inability of gays to judge marriage and family? No marriage honoring or caring parent would equate with those examples.
Amazingly stupid...
Smirk.
OK... Let's look at "real America". In 2008, just over 40% of live births in this country were to single parent households. That's up from 18.4% in 1980.

I thought that evolutionary mating behavior (from a cross cultural perspective) depended on marriage.

Apparently not...

Don't throw gays under the bus just because you straight people can't seem to stay married.

Hundreds of thousands of us would love to be given the opportunity to marry someone for life.

You can't predict whether or not a gay couple will divorce any more than I can predict whether or not a straight couple will.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190186
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
If marriage is so f$cked up, why would you want to be a part of it? Kind of like buying a new car for MSRP with a blown engine if you ask me.
Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out). Some do last.

Since you probably didn't read my post clearly, you likely missed the point I was making to Kimare. I was simply trying to point out that not all marriages are a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Many people enter into marriage for reasons other than to raise families.

If marriage was solely about the creation of families, then laws would be in place that mandated fertility testing prior to marriage. There would also be laws in place that would automatically dissolve a marriage if it did not produce an offspring.

Wouldn't you agree?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190187
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out). Some do last.
Since you probably didn't read my post clearly, you likely missed the point I was making to Kimare. I was simply trying to point out that not all marriages are a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Many people enter into marriage for reasons other than to raise families.
If marriage was solely about the creation of families, then laws would be in place that mandated fertility testing prior to marriage. There would also be laws in place that would automatically dissolve a marriage if it did not produce an offspring.
Wouldn't you agree?
The reason the government is in the marriage business at all is that marriage is good for society. It is a stabilizing influence and a family is the building block of society. Children play very heavily into this but it is true that they are not the only reason the government encourages marriage. Families without children and or having no intent or ability to have children are still beneficial to society.

I believe same sex, opposite sex, poly marriage and yes, incest marriage all deserve EQUAL consideration and respect, for they all contribute to a stable prosperous society.

And I believe SSM supporters who don't support polygamy and incest marriage are hypocrites.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190188
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out). Some do last.
You seem to be centering your argument on the basis that they don't, and that is why same-sex marriage is a non-issue. Are you no longer interested in that line of reasoning?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you probably didn't read my post clearly, you likely missed the point I was making to Kimare.
You hardly ever have a point, you simply post talking points over and over again. Most times they don't even relate to the post you are replying to.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I was simply trying to point out that not all marriages are a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Marriage is a social construct created by homo-sapiens.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Many people enter into marriage for reasons other than to raise families.
If marriage was solely about the creation of families, then laws would be in place that mandated fertility testing prior to marriage. There would also be laws in place that would automatically dissolve a marriage if it did not produce an offspring.
Wouldn't you agree?
It doesn't matter if I agree or not. The historical basis for marriage, as the government regulates it in this country, was to protect and ensure stability for the children that could potentially be created from such a union. This is the entire reason the court has accepted that there is a State interest in marriage. If this is no longer the case, than what interest does the State have?

The State interest has always been in regards to "potential." You would know this if you would actually educate yourself rather than running around thinking any of your opinions have any basis if fact.

What is completely illogical, is a group of people not only inviting, but demanding the government regulate them.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190189
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Mike the Pike wrote:
Next thing you know, marriage will be between a man and his dog!
Some will say animals cannot give consent to marry, but we don't need their consent to kill and eat them, why should we need it to marry them?
Mike the Pike

Nelson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190190
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Marriage is a biblically defined relationship which only identifies one man and one woman as the legitimate participants. Once this definition is cast aside by society, ultimatly there will be no bounds to what constitutes an eligible party to a marriage! Man and Man, Man and Woman, Man and Bird, Dog and Cat, Man and Dog, etc.

The logic is flawless!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190191
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>

Don't throw gays under the bus just because you straight people can't seem to stay married.
"Same-Sex Couple Fights for Right to Divorce in Maryland" http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Same-...

"Texas, USA: Dallas Gay Couple Still Seeking Divorce After Four Years"
http://purpleunions.com/blog/2013/01/texas-us...

"Rhode Island Judge Faces Legal Quandary as Gay Couple Seeks Divorce"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231473,00...

There are more, but why bother. But one must enjoy the irony. Here we have a group of people screaming that they must be granted the acknowledgement of the government to unite them as one in marriage- because it is a RIGHT and to prevent such would be an infringement on their FREEDOM.

Note the term's- RIGHT and FREEDOM.

Now, since they were granted that "right" and "freedom" they must now fight the GOVERNMENT for their "RIGHT" and "FREEDOM" to dissolve that "MARRIAGE".

The irony being, they are neither "FREE" nor are they exercising a "RIGHT." They are exercising a government granted PRIVILEGE!

Without that silly little piece of paper, they would have been FREE and within their RIGHT to unite or dissolve said union or marriage at WILL!

That my friends is freedom, at least as our founders would have defined it.
Mike the Pike

Nelson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190192
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Consent will not be a problem. I have yet to hear a dog say the word "NO"!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190193
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be centering your argument on the basis that they don't, and that is why same-sex marriage is a non-issue. Are you no longer interested in that line of reasoning?
<quoted text>
You hardly ever have a point, you simply post talking points over and over again. Most times they don't even relate to the post you are replying to.
<quoted text>
Marriage is a social construct created by homo-sapiens.
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter if I agree or not. The historical basis for marriage, as the government regulates it in this country, was to protect and ensure stability for the children that could potentially be created from such a union. This is the entire reason the court has accepted that there is a State interest in marriage. If this is no longer the case, than what interest does the State have?
The State interest has always been in regards to "potential." You would know this if you would actually educate yourself rather than running around thinking any of your opinions have any basis if fact.
What is completely illogical, is a group of people not only inviting, but demanding the government regulate them.
Hmmmmm....ya know Ak.....that last line speaks volumes. I've thought it was odd the way SSMers would ague for the "freedom to marry" by asking the state to regulate their intimate personal relationship. It seems to contradict the desires result.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190194
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out).
You can, some of us cannot. Some posters are more equal than others on Topix.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190195
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

What kind of loser rates posts over and over again many times?
Jissthefacts

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190198
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Must have been a typo or something like that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190199
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

11

11

11

just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>You Jackass
Nope. That's more your schtick.

And why would I rate my posts bad and yours good you big dummy? Boy are you stupid. Too funny!

P.S. Get an argument and get back to us.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190200
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be centering your argument on the basis that they don't, and that is why same-sex marriage is a non-issue. Are you no longer interested in that line of reasoning?
<quoted text>
You hardly ever have a point, you simply post talking points over and over again. Most times they don't even relate to the post you are replying to.
<quoted text>
Marriage is a social construct created by homo-sapiens.
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter if I agree or not. The historical basis for marriage, as the government regulates it in this country, was to protect and ensure stability for the children that could potentially be created from such a union. This is the entire reason the court has accepted that there is a State interest in marriage. If this is no longer the case, than what interest does the State have?
The State interest has always been in regards to "potential." You would know this if you would actually educate yourself rather than running around thinking any of your opinions have any basis if fact.
What is completely illogical, is a group of people not only inviting, but demanding the government regulate them.
You're of the opinion that you "know" quite a bit about this matter.

Tell me, why do you waste your time talking to us "idiots"?

If all of us are morons--ignorant and uneducated on the subjects of Constitutional law, marriage, etc., why do you bother coming here?

Shouldn't you be arguing in a courtroom? Shouldn't you offer your "valuable insight" to the real world?

I've pointed out your obvious flaw several times. You need to feel superior. You have anger issues.

What whips up such fury in someone like you?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 166,041 - 166,060 of200,319
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••

Brentwood News Video

•••
•••

Brentwood Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Brentwood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Brentwood News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••