Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#183561 Mar 16, 2013
Gender segregation marriage is bad because men and women differ; the facts of life are reflected in our marriage laws.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#183562 Mar 16, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're sure right there, no-one is forcing me to marry someone of the same sex. And, yes sir, gays pay taxes, although it is a minority proportion. Right again, bub. And protection is one thing, but wrongful declarations are something else. The rights that are protected are the ones guaranteeing protection from the government overstepping its bounds, not any that are imagined. Like making everyone accept SSM. Or having the government override the will of the people.
Bigfoot, fk the "will of the people" if it goes against equal protection. Why do you think we have a Constitution, three branches of government and checks and balances and don't just vote on everything?
You won't accept gay marriage, no matter what. That's a non issue.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#183563 Mar 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Gender segregation marriage is bad because men and women differ; the facts of life are reflected in our marriage laws.
Intelligent people and fundies differ. But they should still have equal rights.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#183564 Mar 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Our rights should depend on our chromosomes?
Should you have the same rights a shrimp does?
KiMare wrote:
Duplicate gendered couples are not just an obvious distinction from diverse gendered couples, they are a direct defective conflict with the very basic purpose of evolution.
You have no argument for 'equal' rights.

A man can marry a woman, a woman should have that same right.
A woman can marry a man, a man should have that same right.
KiMare wrote:
If you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you immediately discriminate against other friendships and the number involved.
Smile.
<quoted text>
Oh knock off the gay twirl hissy fit masquerading as logic!
Inter-racial marriages conflict in no way with the basic essence of marriage. They have been present throughout history in every culture.
Even if true, so what?
KiMare wrote:
Duplicate gendered couples fail at every level with marriage.
You are dual gendered at the cellular level. Do you fail at every level? Should you have been aborted?
KiMare wrote:
They have never been accepted from start of finish in a single culture in all of human history.
Nor are the arguments the same, as much as you'd like to gay twirl it.
Moreover, it is common sense and simple logic, not scare tactics, that it would be prejudicial to allow only certain types of committed relationships and limit those to just two people. Unless of course, you could come up with a legit reason???
As to the message of the past, the only one I am aware of is that when an attempt to call gay couples married, it never survived for any length of time. Anywhere.
Smile.
Shrimp have 92 chromosomes, not humans!
:)
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#183565 Mar 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent people and fundies differ. But they should still have equal rights.
Rose_NoHo.

Exactly. White "Liberals" who advocate legalizing the "marriage" of two African and non-Africans of the same sex should be entitled to no more constitutional rights than are we decent dog lovers.

Ronald
jamest

Glendale, CA

#183566 Mar 16, 2013
look these gays have paid a lot of money trying to have their way if you are gay then be gay you don't have the sme right as a man and wmen i don't care how many people you bribe the only right you shoul have is puting your head in the sand come on folk to man having sex 2 chick having sex licking each other balls or pussy his sweaty balls saying i love you man nasty shit man plane and simple puting his penis were you shit your waste come on now folk that not love that just nasty

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#183567 Mar 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Good points! A gay judge dismissed the lawful vote of a majority of Californians, now they cry about their 'rights'. There is no right to gender equality.
Men and women are different, vive le difference. Reason number two for keeping marriage one man and one woman; sexual differentiation. Isn't it cool how law reflects nature?
One more person that doesn't understand how America works. We're not a democratic nation. Go back and take a look at the reasons for his ruling and the subsequent judicial responses that followed his decision.

Oh, BTW, same sex marriage is gaining ground. 1 out of 4 republicans now approve of it. Democrats favor it by majority and so do libertarians.
BeeWax

Covina, CA

#183569 Mar 16, 2013
I knew bees wax could build up in your ears, but never over your eye holes?
Robsan5

United States

#183571 Mar 16, 2013
How mamy of you queers want a d!ck up your a.ss?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#183572 Mar 16, 2013
jamest wrote:
look these gays have paid a lot of money trying to have their way if you are gay then be gay you don't have the sme right as a man and wmen i don't care how many people you bribe the only right you shoul have is puting your head in the sand come on folk to man having sex 2 chick having sex licking each other balls or pussy his sweaty balls saying i love you man nasty shit man plane and simple puting his penis were you shit your waste come on now folk that not love that just nasty
wow you are vile and vulgar and very nasty. Get some help, sounds like u might be a sex addict, what a waste of time that is.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#183574 Mar 16, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU you HOMO... you suck
Hey, Bruno, he merely pointed out how you blew more men ever before, and you got all red about.....LOL.....Eat shyte, you blo-hard...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183575 Mar 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is not all courts agree that banning SSM is unconstitutional. We both know that.
Is Judge Walker gay?
None of the appellate judges that agreed with his decision were gay, nor are any of the supreme court justices that will also uphold the overturning of Prop 8

lame argument, and already past it, Judges that are not gay are already agreeing

So lets see

Procreation is a lost argument
Same sex marriages leads to marrying your sister is a lost ( and particularly laughable ) argument
Judge was gay is a lost argument

What else you got? Other than hatred?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#183576 Mar 16, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
... We're not a democratic nation....
^^^Same sex marriage is antidemocratic, and they know it.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#183577 Mar 16, 2013
Rose's "equality" Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the decent women and men who are dog lovers!?"

Ronald
drinK The Hive

New York, NY

#183578 Mar 16, 2013
A Lot Of Those People Are Probably Plagued With Self-Doubt From Their Queer Desires - But If Getting A Sex Change Or Dressing In Drag Make' Them Feel More Comfortable 4 The Ride - They Should Go 4 It...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llqi3xNetO1...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#183579 Mar 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Same sex marriage is antidemocratic, and they know it.
So is inter-racial marriage. So what? People are granted equal protection under the law, even when that's not popular.
Get over it

Cape Girardeau, MO

#183580 Mar 16, 2013
Some dudes like other dudes

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183582 Mar 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Duplicate gendered couples are not just an obvious distinction from diverse gendered couples, they are a direct defective conflict with the very basic purpose of evolution.
You have no argument for 'equal' rights. If you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you immediately discriminate against other friendships and the number involved.
Smile.
<quoted text>
Oh knock off the gay twirl hissy fit masquerading as logic!
Inter-racial marriages conflict in no way with the basic essence of marriage. They have been present throughout history in every culture.
Duplicate gendered couples fail at every level with marriage. They have never been accepted from start of finish in a single culture in all of human history.
Nor are the arguments the same, as much as you'd like to gay twirl it.
Moreover, it is common sense and simple logic, not scare tactics, that it would be prejudicial to allow only certain types of committed relationships and limit those to just two people. Unless of course, you could come up with a legit reason???
As to the message of the past, the only one I am aware of is that when an attempt to call gay couples married, it never survived for any length of time. Anywhere.
Smile.
Can you prove that gay marriage has never been accepted by any culture from beginning to end at any point in history?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183583 Mar 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So is inter-racial marriage. So what? People are granted equal protection under the law, even when that's not popular.
But Rosie, they ready have it.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#183584 Mar 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So is inter-racial marriage. So what? People are granted equal protection under the law, even when that's not popular.
Rose_NoHo.

Good point! If the Government permits Africans to "marry" White people, why shouldn't Government "legitimize" the "marriages" of two persons of the same (pardon the vulgarism) "sex" as well as legitimizing the marriages of we dog lovers who choose to marry the Honeys' of our own choosing?

Ronald

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.

Modesto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sheila Garcia Del Rio's scam artist Nov 29 Well Well 2
Two children among four found dead after mobile... Nov 23 openmind693 1
unsolved. murders Nov 21 unsolved 1
News Homeless Modesto Men Headed for Trial (Apr '08) Nov 17 Your Service Prov... 28
Did you know?... Nov 10 Your Service Prov... 1
Neighbors make your home HELL!! (May '08) Nov 6 Ready to detinate 31
Are Modesto Police doing there job? (Nov '07) Nov '16 Your Service Prov... 74

Modesto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Modesto Mortgages