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
163,381 - 163,400 of 200,349 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186966
Apr 6, 2013
 
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose_NoHo.
Speaking on behalf of my fellow dog lovers, I can say our record speaks for itself. There is no other group of persons advocating the RIGHT of the Africans to "marry" White people as well as the RIGHT of two persons of the same SEX to "marry" one another more so than us. That much is clear. As you are a self-processed expert on these matters, I must ask you how we should respond to those who say that decent folks who engage in Homosexual "marriage" and bestiality are acting against nature?
Ronald
Dogs may eat poop out of the cat box, but they do have some standards. No dog would marry you.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186967
Apr 6, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there one? Is it near the "people who should have been aborted" forum? Or the "I hate you" forum?
If there isn't a forum about poly marriage, feel free to start one.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186968
Apr 6, 2013
 
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I've got to tell you, me amigo; the "marriage" that you're worried about being diminished kind of bit the dust when people started spending more on them than my parents spent on their first house. And those bitter and expensive divorces hasn't helped the institution much either.
Can't blame that on us.
Might not have been your personal decision to make marriages into spectacles, but it was the heterosexual community that created such monstrosities.
Marriage and family took a devastating down turn the last time GOVERNMENT got involved. Then they removed the commitment of marriage, now you want the government to remove children from marriage.

It is your bigotry towards heterosexuals like that stated above that caused me to realize the pointlessness of meeting with you. Quit your whining and hypocrisy.

SMile.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186969
Apr 6, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
If there isn't a forum about poly marriage, feel free to start one.
No thanks. This is a perfectly good marriage equality thread.

But feel free to start a "do you think you should you have been aborted" thread. That has nothing to do with marriage equality and is off topic here.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186970
Apr 6, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogs may eat poop out of the cat box, but they do have some standards. No dog would marry you.
If there isn't a forum about cat feces eating dogs, feel free to start one. It's off topic here. This is a forum on marriage equality.
Anonymous

Groton, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186971
Apr 6, 2013
 
Lilith wrote:
<quoted text>Oooh nice... gee sweetie is that marlboro perfume you wear or camel.... Are you one of those skaanks you can smell the smoke trail on for 100 feet as you go by
I likes my tabaccers:) and you for sure are not a high end h00ker you're too nasty, you work for wooden nickels! Does your vag come with a warning."Caution enter at your own risk, due to heavy chemicals of contamination your penis may shrivel up and die"!.LMFAO. No wait, you don't need a sign, the smell keeps them away!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186973
Apr 6, 2013
 
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you quantify that financial damage?
Absolutely not.
:-D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186974
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what about Tim Tebow's little dip to pray when he enters the end zone? What about a singer who, in front of 70,000 fans, thanks God after a concert? What about the guy who gets on asks a girl to marry him on the "Jumbotron" during a basketball game? What about a church who publicly decries homosexuality--using children to carry hate-filled picket signs?
People who have an issue that is near and dear to their hearts or communities OFTEN use the public media to express them. This is nothing new.
Do you have an "ick factor" when it comes to gays?
I asked you earlier if you were just as offended by gay women are you are by gay men who make public pronouncements. I don't remember getting a response.
Why does it bother you so much to hear about gay people who believe that they have been wronged by the social, religious, and political system?
Can you be specific?
If it is telecast, broadcast, or on the radio, then it is wrong, to me, to use these media to serve oneself. Church is a personal matter, and it is subject to small congregations. I also abhor churches panhandling. Nope, no "ick' factor. I answered you about hating gay women as much as the men, I told you you that I hated none. But I hold men and women equal, so my irritation at "coming out" is equal to both genders. I think that you have gotten the issue a bit muddled, because this question: "Why does it bother you so much to hear about gay people who believe that they have been wronged by the social, religious, and political system?" seems to infer that there is no difference between "coming out" and having a political agenda. Do you believe that they are one and the same?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186975
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage and family took a devastating down turn the last time GOVERNMENT got involved. Then they removed the commitment of marriage, now you want the government to remove children from marriage.
It is your bigotry towards heterosexuals like that stated above that caused me to realize the pointlessness of meeting with you. Quit your whining and hypocrisy.
SMile.
No one has ever said that children would be removed from marriage. Rather, children will never be a requirement of marriage.

And how can you say that I have bigotry towards heterosexuals? Some of my best friends are heterosexuals.

See how easy it is to take a page from your book?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186976
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I will add one thing to my response above... If incestuous marriages "might" result from allowing same-gender marriage; why is it that incestuous marriages didn't spring forth from the legalization of heterosexual marriages?
1. Who 'legalized' heterosexual marriages?

2. Because at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. For the sake of children. Incest doesn't qualify, which means ss couples don't qualify even less.

Smile.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186977
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage and family took a devastating down turn the last time GOVERNMENT got involved.
Then they removed the commitment of marriage, now you want the government to remove children from marriage.
Is your brain made out of two populations of genetically distinct cells that don't communicate with each other? Is that why you are so dumb? Nobody is trying to remove children from marriage. Some couples will have children, some won't. Gay marriage won't change that.
KiMare wrote:
It is your bigotry towards heterosexuals like that stated above that caused me to realize the pointlessness of meeting with you. Quit your whining and hypocrisy.
SMile.
And some couples will have monsters they wish they had aborted.
Bummer, eh?
:)

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186978
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No thanks. This is a perfectly good marriage equality thread.
But feel free to start a "do you think you should you have been aborted" thread. That has nothing to do with marriage equality and is off topic here.
OK, don't.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186979
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is telecast, broadcast, or on the radio, then it is wrong, to me, to use these media to serve oneself. Church is a personal matter, and it is subject to small congregations. I also abhor churches panhandling. Nope, no "ick' factor. I answered you about hating gay women as much as the men, I told you you that I hated none.
That's a clear lie.
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
But I hold men and women equal,
Well, a woman can marry a man, if you hold men and women equal, why don't you think a man should also be able to marry a man?
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
so my irritation at "coming out" is equal to both genders. I think that you have gotten the issue a bit muddled, because this question: "Why does it bother you so much to hear about gay people who believe that they have been wronged by the social, religious, and political system?" seems to infer that there is no difference between "coming out" and having a political agenda. Do you believe that they are one and the same?
Whatever.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186980
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If there isn't a forum about cat feces eating dogs, feel free to start one. It's off topic here. This is a forum on marriage equality.
Cat feces doesn't eat dogs.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186981
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, again, is an example of "your side" creating arguments against an issue that NO ONE is supporting!
In neither of the two cases discussing same-gender marriages have attorneys argued including same-gender, incestuous marriages.
And has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, not only is incest illegal in this country, but marrying one's family is also illegal.
Why on EARTH would you even bring this issue to the table?
Are you THAT afraid?
Look, I see what you're trying to do... You're trying to show that same-gender marriage will provide a slippery slope (God I hate that term) so that all manner of bizarre marriages will be allowed to take place in the future.
But let me point out that the "slope" began with heterosexual marriage. If marriage had never been invented, then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
You need to realize that the courts have ruled that same-gender relationships are protected under the law. THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL!
Science and medicine have determined that homosexuality IS NOT A DISORDER!
Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder.
There is NO REASON to believe that allowing same-gender couples to marry will result in incestuous marriages; whether they be gay or straight.
You are using unwarranted fear tactics in an attempt to win an argument. And it's time that you bring the discussion of this ridiculous idea to an end!
Of course, you must realize that incest and polygamy are in exactly the same situation as homosexual marriage was, only a few years ago, namely, illegal and stigmatized. Surely, you cannot argue this point? We used to have Sodomy laws on the books, and then, due to lobbying, this was changed. Now, of course, we can both agree that all were on the law books because someone had the idea that they were in a position to dictate who may marry whom, according to what they believed was right, but in full denial of the individuals right to choose for themselves. This was wrong, as has been pointed out by your side, to have someone else dictate what is right for me, or you. To indicate that it is "slippery slope" to allow incestuous or polygamous marriage is to deny the logical implication that we all should be allowed to decide for ourselves who we wish to marry. You wish to infer that these marriages are "icky", while promoting the idea that you have a right to choose who may marry whom, and you further wish to separate yourselves from a "freak-show", although you ignore the fact that we see SSM as the same freak-show. You see yourselves as the noble freedom fighters for the rights to marry who you wish, and yet, see any others in the exact same situation as "icky". Do you not see, are you unable to see, that this is a serious double standard, on your part? You claim the right to choose your own mates, and yet, use the argument "polygamy and incest are illegal" so glibly, when only a few years ago, you, yourselves, suffered the exact same fate. You were able to change this, and claim that you were being discriminated against, and now, you look down your nose upon others whose fight is for nothing less than what you fought for. When your choice was illegal, it was wrong. When poly and incest are wrong, you shrug as if there is nothing wrong with that. You are acting as we did. How does it feel, to ignore the plight of another freedom fighter? It probably does not seem so strange to deny a coupling that you disapprove of, does it? Odd, how you run with the fox, then hunt with the hounds. I have news for you. We see your fight in the same terms as you see the poly and incest in. Namely, it is (or was) illegal, and there is nothing wrong with that, as it is not right. Welcome to our side, son, Welcome to being a bigot and a hater and a Communist. Labels, from your side. I'm sure that you recognize them, as we have had to receive them, so now you must. For the EXACT same reasons.
Cheers.
Hater

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186983
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't answer my question??
You first.
Answer for your bigotry for any marriage outside of the two person non-related form.

Since: Apr 13

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186984
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>I likes my tabaccers:) and you for sure are not a high end h00ker you're too nasty, you work for wooden nickels! Does your vag come with a warning."Caution enter at your own risk, due to heavy chemicals of contamination your penis may shrivel up and die"!.LMFAO. No wait, you don't need a sign, the smell keeps them away!
Hey biatch ... does your fiance know you smoke three pacs of non filter a day... guess he would given he's yo older brother.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186985
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, again, is an example of "your side" creating arguments against an issue that NO ONE is supporting!
In neither of the two cases discussing same-gender marriages have attorneys argued including same-gender, incestuous marriages.
And has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, not only is incest illegal in this country, but marrying one's family is also illegal.
Why on EARTH would you even bring this issue to the table?
Are you THAT afraid?
Look, I see what you're trying to do... You're trying to show that same-gender marriage will provide a slippery slope (God I hate that term) so that all manner of bizarre marriages will be allowed to take place in the future.
But let me point out that the "slope" began with heterosexual marriage. If marriage had never been invented, then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
You need to realize that the courts have ruled that same-gender relationships are protected under the law. THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL!
Science and medicine have determined that homosexuality IS NOT A DISORDER!
Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder.
There is NO REASON to believe that allowing same-gender couples to marry will result in incestuous marriages; whether they be gay or straight.
You are using unwarranted fear tactics in an attempt to win an argument. And it's time that you bring the discussion of this ridiculous idea to an end!
Now, the second issue. The "Bait-n-Switch". Blame the issue on us, for even having the institution of Marriage. Cute. Faulty, but cute. We have embraced the institution of marriage through tradition, the same tradition that Big D likes to shit on, whenever he feels like it. Why do you wish to join in on something that is not for you? Because you see that some may benefit from it, and you feel "left out". You do not mind the poly's and the incest's being left out, though, do you? No.We set up the institute for the benefit of parents rights and to protect the family unit, which means the "natural" family unit, but has since widened to include the family unit that contains adopted children. Cool. Now, in order to get what you want, you are ready, willing and able to appropriate the children to further your ends, in spite of the fact that children need the balance provided by a mother and a father. you do not care that you are willing to sacrifice the well-being of children to grasp something that you think you should have, even though we set that up to benefit "natural" families. You could have drawn up legal contracts to allow SSC's to have most of the same rights that natural families get, without having to claim the time-honored title of "Married", but then, you would feel like there was something about your relationships that isn't quite square with the rest of us, and in that, you would be correct. SSC might be legal, but they do not contain the same ingredients that Hetero couples do. Not our fault that you wish to make a souffle, but are only producing omelets. Hell, one of your hero's, Chongo, claims that equal rights are being violated by not saying that men and women are the same. It is to laugh. Perhaps, then, we should do away with labels on public lavatories? And in the schools? Some of your side are even indecent enough to think that men, going through sex change operations, but not yet changed, may use the opposite locker rooms to change clothes in. Public flaunting of all that is decent and right.
Lastly, "Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder." is a flat out lie. There is no such finding, anywhere, that incest is a disorder. Would it be a disorder if the siblings were not aware that they were siblings? Of course not. Please do not produce more propaganda, we have enough of that already, whenever we hear that "more Americans are supporting SSM every day". Pure BS. These supporters do not exist. They are lies

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186986
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogs may eat poop out of the cat box, but they do have some standards. No dog would marry you.
Are you sure you're old enough to be on here?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186988
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, again, is an example of "your side" creating arguments against an issue that NO ONE is supporting!
In neither of the two cases discussing same-gender marriages have attorneys argued including same-gender, incestuous marriages.
And has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, not only is incest illegal in this country, but marrying one's family is also illegal.
Why on EARTH would you even bring this issue to the table?
Are you THAT afraid?
Look, I see what you're trying to do... You're trying to show that same-gender marriage will provide a slippery slope (God I hate that term) so that all manner of bizarre marriages will be allowed to take place in the future.
But let me point out that the "slope" began with heterosexual marriage. If marriage had never been invented, then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
You need to realize that the courts have ruled that same-gender relationships are protected under the law. THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL!
Science and medicine have determined that homosexuality IS NOT A DISORDER!
Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder.
There is NO REASON to believe that allowing same-gender couples to marry will result in incestuous marriages; whether they be gay or straight.
You are using unwarranted fear tactics in an attempt to win an argument. And it's time that you bring the discussion of this ridiculous idea to an end!
Now, the second issue. The "Bait-n-Switch". Blame the issue on us, for even having the institution of Marriage. Cute. Faulty, but cute. We have embraced the institution of marriage through tradition, the same tradition that Big D likes to shit on, whenever he feels like it. Why do you wish to join in on something that is not for you? Because you see that some may benefit from it, and you feel "left out". You do not mind the poly's and the incest's being left out, though, do you? No.We set up the institute for the benefit of parents rights and to protect the family unit, which means the "natural" family unit, but has since widened to include the family unit that contains adopted children. Cool. Now, in order to get what you want, you are ready, willing and able to appropriate the children to further your ends, in spite of the fact that children need the balance provided by a mother and a father. you do not care that you are willing to sacrifice the well-being of children to grasp something that you think you should have, even though we set that up to benefit "natural" families. You could have drawn up legal contracts to allow SSC's to have most of the same rights that natural families get, without having to claim the time-honored title of "Married", but then, you would feel like there was something about your relationships that isn't quite square with the rest of us, and in that, you would be correct. SSC might be legal, but they do not contain the same ingredients that Hetero couples do. Not our fault that you wish to make a souffle, but are only producing omelets. Hell, one of your hero's, Chongo, claims that equal rights are being violated by not saying that men and women are the same. It is to laugh. Perhaps, then, we should do away with labels on public lavatories? And in the schools? Some of your side are even indecent enough to think that men, going through sex change operations, but not yet changed, may use the opposite locker rooms to change clothes in. Public flaunting of all that is decent and right.
Lastly, "Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder." is a flat out lie. There is no such finding, anywhere, that incest is a disorder. Would it be a disorder if the siblings were not aware that they were siblings? Of course not. Please do not produce more propaganda, we have enough of that already, whenever we hear that "more Americans are supporting SSM every day". Pure BS. These supporters do not exist. They are lies.

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.

•••
•••

Montebello News Video

•••
•••

Montebello Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Montebello People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Montebello News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••