Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,976

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

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#172537 Dec 29, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like they did with Loving v VA?
Loving v Virginia had nothing to do with same sex marriage.

"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced."- Hernandez v Robles

Even the court told you that you are wrong, yet here you are.
Oshoosh

West Covina, CA

#172538 Dec 29, 2012
Simple put, we don't really care what some out of towners thinks or posts hers at all.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#172540 Dec 29, 2012
The Judge has no right to overturn the ban on same sex marriage. See what I mean about democrats flouting the constitution when it already was against same sex marriage? Obama does that a lot too.
FlatTire

West Covina, CA

#172541 Dec 29, 2012
Oh you mean, flat-heads of the Republican and tea party, I hear they all gather at the end of the worlds flat map.
THE DEBIL

Slovenia

#172542 Dec 29, 2012
Q: SO, UM, HOW CAN YOU TELL THE JEWS ON TOPIX? A" THEY'RE THE GUYS HAWKING THE TEENAGED GIRLS TO THE POSTERS FO' MONEY.
THE DEBIL

Slovenia

#172543 Dec 29, 2012
WANT TO LOOK 15 YEARS YOUNGER? TAKE YOUR PICTURE WITH A REFLECTED LIGHT INSTEAD OF A DIRECT FLASH. DUH.
THE DEBIL

Slovenia

#172544 Dec 29, 2012
DUH!
FlatTire

West Covina, CA

#172545 Dec 29, 2012
You fizzled before you got off the ground Willard Mitt Romney, and to your Republican and Tea Party cheap actors.
Davis

Miami, FL

#172546 Dec 29, 2012
Great news... The next battle.... Gay divorce:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#172547 Dec 29, 2012
Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for male/female marriage. I doubt the court would have decided the same if the Lovings were a same sex couple.
Straight Sh00ter

Lawrence, KS

#172548 Dec 29, 2012
gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
If SCOTUS declines to hear the case then the Appellate court ruling stands, and same sex marriage, again, is legal in California.
So why aren't you posting in the gay cafe, hmmm?
linus simms

Orange, CA

#172549 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Hey Mona! Can I get a hahahahahahahaha? A big long one?
Trade you a YUK!YUK!YUK! for it.
quiet phagg-oid. keep your mental issues to yourself.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#172550 Dec 29, 2012
linus simms wrote:
<quoted text>
quiet phagg-oid. keep your mental issues to yourself.
Aw, SHUDDUP you dopey Jackass!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#172551 Dec 29, 2012
YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#172552 Dec 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Great, let's hear it.
<quoted text>
That isn't an argument as equal rights to not always mean equal outcomes. And no matter how much you peddle your nonsense, currently all people are treated equally as each and every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Well, stupid, that's like saying everyone was treated equally under Jim Crow because everyone could sit in the section assigned to their race.

The "opposite sex" isn't the same for men and women, so they are not being treated equally.
akpilot wrote:
The jabs don't take any effort, you make is quite easy with you consistent presentation of nonsense.
Obviously, since you're not capable of any real effort.
akpilot wrote:
BTW Rose, you never answered the question. What are you more angry about- the color of your skin or the fact that no one cares?
Begging the question.(Look that up.)
How can I be angry when I'm laughing at you?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#172553 Dec 29, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for male/female marriage. I doubt the court would have decided the same if the Lovings were a same sex couple.
Dummy, you can't even follow your own train of thought. You were talking about states' rights. Well, stupid, VA is a state. OK, it's a commonwealth, but the principle is the same. VA had laws that violated the 14th Amendment, so they were overturned by the Supreme Court.

If they were a same sex couple? If down were up, I wouldn't need a bra.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#172554 Dec 29, 2012
Straight Sh00ter wrote:
<quoted text>
So why aren't you posting in the gay cafe, hmmm?
Straight Sh00ter.

Out of staters such as yourself probably are not aware of it, but the free-spending out-of-control Homosexual and non-Homosexual California legislators are using hard earned taxpayer money to teach Homosexuality to innocent little non-Homosexual children who attend expensive taxpayer funded forced California Government schools.

Most Californians love their Homosexual friends and the lesbians. Because California politicians collect most of the hard earned taxpayer money used to teach Homosexuality to innocent little non-Homosexual children from the non-Homosexual community, the Homosexuality issue is no longer an issue only of concern to our Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and the Africans - including AIDS infected Haitian immigrants.

Ronald

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#172555 Dec 29, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has already been defined.
It is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are a obviously false imposter relationship.
It would be like trying to put a bent rod in a straight hole. Everyone can see it isn't the same.
Jane Pudenda wrote:
<quoted text>
boring claptrap.
In other words, you are defenseless in the face of reality.

Smirk.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#172556 Dec 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v Virginia had nothing to do with same sex marriage.
"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced."- Hernandez v Robles
Even the court told you that you are wrong, yet here you are.
Dummy, I didn't say Loving v VA had anything to do with gay marriage.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#172557 Dec 29, 2012
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has already been defined.
It is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are a obviously false imposter relationship.
It would be like trying to put a bent rod in a straight hole. Everyone can see it isn't the same.
<quoted text>
In other words, you are defenseless in the face of reality.
Smirk.

You call yourself a "monster mutation".
Should your rights depend on your genes?
Should you be allowed to marry twice because you have both sets?
Or should you not be allowed to marry at all because you have both sets?
LOLSER!

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 5 hr JOEL 69,402
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 7 hr free for all 5,081
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 19 hr surfs up 7,955
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sat bubba 69 2
Dennis W (Veeser) from Krakow Wi. Fri Mia 1
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Fri scoop 2,273
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••