Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,971

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.

Full Story

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#166067 Oct 31, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Judge Walker excluded evidence and ignored precedent such as Baker v Nelson.
No he didn't.....and Baker vs Nelson DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PROP 8 CASE. They are NOT similarity situated!!!

Baker vs Nelson has to do with a marriage license not being issued, the Perry vs Hollinsworth case has to do with marriage being a right for Same-Sex Couples and Prop 8 removing that right......NOT THE SAME...therefore Judge Walker was not BOUND by the Baker vs Nelson case and preceded with the trial!!!
ClawBack

Covina, CA

#166069 Oct 31, 2012
I love it when you come crawling back for more!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166070 Oct 31, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not angry or obsessed as you seem to be
You keep explaining that you didnít understand, I have acknowledged that you donít understand
done
I never explained "I don't understand." I said I don't know who you are posting to when you complained you weren't posting to me. If you have a post where I said "I don't understand", produce it tough guy or stop lying.

You mad?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166071 Oct 31, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal?
NO I am offering them the exact same rights as they offer Same Sex Couples.( or lack of rights as it were )


Then you are the same as them. You would deny them equal rights. Doesn't matter why. Does it matter why they want to deny you equal rights?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166072 Oct 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I never explained "I don't understand." I said I don't know who you are posting to when you complained you weren't posting to me. If you have a post where I said "I don't understand", produce it tough guy or stop lying.
You mad?
And you are still explaining that you didnít understand... I canít help you kid, you didnít get it, your arenít going to.( shrug )
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166073 Oct 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you are the same as them. You would deny them equal rights. Doesn't matter why. Does it matter why they want to deny you equal rights?
Read this very slowly, it is becoming tiresome having to continue to explain everything to you over and over again, I am not paid to educate you.

I am offering them EQUAL rights, the same equal rights ( or lack thereof ) that they want to enforce on others.

Equal... look up the word

It isnít that I actually want that, I am trying to put it into perspective, but you arenít going to comprehend it.
4more

Covina, CA

#166074 Oct 31, 2012
Can't get it any where else, just keep crawling back here for more.

Since: Nov 11

Fukushima

#166075 Oct 31, 2012
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Not as impressive as you fellating 36 guys in less than an hour.
A fantasy of yours?
RiccardoFire

Los Angeles, CA

#166076 Oct 31, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You like that stuff don't ya stud muffin? Honestly, why do you morons come up with this garbage?
He wants to see you out yourself, ya pansy.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166077 Oct 31, 2012
For all my jest.. perhaps that actually is an answer.

The government could stop recognizing all marriages, only recognize civil unions, release the word ďMarriageĒ to individual churches or other organizations that will perform ďMarriagesĒ and then each organization can set up their own individual rules that have nothing to do with the governments recognition of a civil contract that must be filled out and filed legally.

Different paperwork, everyone happy

Certainly would not affect my marriage any. I personally could care less what word the government uses.
4more

Covina, CA

#166078 Oct 31, 2012
Why leave so soon?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166079 Oct 31, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are still explaining that you didnít understand... I canít help you kid, you didnít get it, your arenít going to.( shrug )
I know you don't understand. Everyone else knows you don't understand.

I'm tired of trying to explain it to you fruitloop, so I guess we're done.

You wish to deny equal rights to people you don't like anyway. You're a bigot no use discussing equal rights with you.

Happy hating jackass!
RiccardoFire

Los Angeles, CA

#166080 Oct 31, 2012
4more wrote:
Why leave so soon?
Don't leave. DiRucci and his dance partner Hud are going to engage in rear axle coitus. Sort of like watching a donkey show in TJ.
Tata

Westminster, CA

#166081 Oct 31, 2012
Lets get back to basics. No SSM in this country.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166082 Oct 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you don't understand. Everyone else knows you don't understand.
I'm tired of trying to explain it to you fruitloop, so I guess we're done.
You wish to deny equal rights to people you don't like anyway. You're a bigot no use discussing equal rights with you.
Happy hating jackass!
Wrong again, and you would do better to not pretend you speak for anyone but yourself, it makes you look foolish, you are the only person that didnít understand, and the only person that continuously complained that you didnít understand. You speak for yourself... no one else.

I donít hate anyone, I despise some of the things they do, and it is usually a lack of perspective. Sometimes I flip the perspective for them to show them the other side of what they are doing.

I donít expect you to comprehend... so donít bother explaining that you donít.
DorN

La Puente, CA

#166085 Oct 31, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully Queers won't exist in the foreseeable future.
Next
--------
----------If you Want to keep homosexuals from being born, let them marry homosexuals not heterosexuals. Homosexuals all have at least one heterosexual parent.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#166086 Oct 31, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
No he didn't.....and Baker vs Nelson DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PROP 8 CASE. They are NOT similarity situated!!!
Baker vs Nelson has to do with a marriage license not being issued, the Perry vs Hollinsworth case has to do with marriage being a right for Same-Sex Couples and Prop 8 removing that right......NOT THE SAME...therefore Judge Walker was not BOUND by the Baker vs Nelson case and preceded with the trial!!!
Proposition 8 is almost identical to Minnesota's law defining marriage as one man and one woman.

Judge Walker ignored the precedent of Baker v Nelson and excluded evidence showing the universal nature of male/female marriage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166090 Oct 31, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> Proposition 8 is almost identical to Minnesota's law defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Judge Walker ignored the precedent of Baker v Nelson and excluded evidence showing the universal nature of male/female marriage.
He couldnít, there is no such universal nature, marriage is specific to humans, and homosexuality appears in nature all the time across many species.

Any such argument would have been proven quickly to be wrong, the lawyers knew better than to go down that failure of a road.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166091 Oct 31, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, and you would do better to not pretend you speak for anyone but yourself, it makes you look foolish, you are the only person that didnít understand, and the only person that continuously complained that you didnít understand. You speak for yourself... no one else.
I donít hate anyone, I despise some of the things they do, and it is usually a lack of perspective. Sometimes I flip the perspective for them to show them the other side of what they are doing.
I donít expect you to comprehend... so donít bother explaining that you donít.
You mad Fruitloop?

Too Funny!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166094 Oct 31, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He couldnít, there is no such universal nature, marriage is specific to humans, and homosexuality appears in nature all the time across many species.
Any such argument would have been proven quickly to be wrong, the lawyers knew better than to go down that failure of a road.
I don't get it. Please explain it. "universal nature"?

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 30 min Go Blue Forever 2,272
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 6 hr Eric 69,387
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 12 hr zhuzhamm 5,079
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 17 hr Pizza 16,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Wed Blazing saddles 7,954
The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming (Sep '13) Sep 12 Earthling-1 123
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 11 gotti jr 9
•••
Monterey Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Monterey News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••