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.

Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204158 Jul 22, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>An Irish man has been at a pub all night drinking. The bartender finally says that the bar is closed. So your man stands up to leave and falls flat on his face. He figures he'll crawl outside and get some fresh air and maybe that will sober him up.
Once outside he stands up but again falls flat on his face. He crawls home. Reaching the door he tries to stand up, and yet again, falls flat on his face. He crawls through the door and up the stairs. When he reaches his bed he summons the last of his strength and tries one final time to stand.
It's no use. He tumbles into bed and is soon sound asleep, only to awaken the next morning to the sound of his wife standing over him shouting.
'So... you've been out drinking again!'
'How did you know?' he asks, his head hung in shame.
'The pub called-- you left your damn wheelchair down there again!'
BTW, that was good one...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204159 Jul 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply point pout that you cannot accept reality
no one has hijacked anything, I was married before same sex couples, I am still married, no change, no harm.
The reality is that same sex couples are married, and recognized at the state and federal level.
Now if your marriage was hijacked, I am not surprised, I cannot imagine you being in a very strong mirage in the first place. No harm came to my marriage
Except for the prestige loss. Since you probably had no pride in it, to begin with, I'm not surprised that you failed to notice it...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204160 Jul 22, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I can't.
Understandable. You posted nonsense. Tried, lamely, to fight back, and lost.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204161 Jul 22, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not posted anything likeable.
Posted BS and got it thrown back at you. If I had been you, I would not have liked it, either... You ended up looking foolis...Wait, you had already done that, long ago.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204162 Jul 22, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You already posted that lame joke.
He was giving you a second chance to mouth out the words, and to ask yer parents for pictures....
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204163 Jul 22, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The same applies to all of your posts.
His posts make sense. Yours do not.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#204164 Jul 22, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to calm down.
Are you really that easily intimidated?
LOL
Turn off the computer.
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!!!!!!!!!!

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.

Menifee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Body of Missing Woman Erica Alonso Found Two Mo... Apr 30 BornToLurk 1
Bundy Canyon Rd. Accident 4/29/15 Apr 29 Jamie 1
News South county cities upset over ambulance servic... Apr 29 Les 1
sun city Apr 29 Fmartin3 1
kelly jarka murder trial verdict (Sep '09) Apr 28 e-man 34
the music thread (Apr '12) Apr 25 Gabe Ruthos 32
Positive About Disabled People is located at 51... Apr 19 New Workshop Perris 1
More from around the web

Menifee People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]