Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201820 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.

Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174386 Jan 11, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
This thread is about Prop 8. What does Prop 8 have to do with polygamy?
It refused to allow any marriage, except between man and woman. Thus excluding polygamy, as it did SSM. Any argument that defends SSM must also defend polygamy, for the exact same reasons, freedom of choice. Silly, that was easy. Go apply some make-up and think of yourself as normal. LOL As if you can...
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174387 Jan 11, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
That lame-ass excuse again?...yawn... It was laughable the first time you posted it, now it's just boring.
No, it is not bopring. It is a valid question. Answer it, as you expect your questions to be answered.
MarginsCall

Monrovia, CA

#174388 Jan 11, 2013
Workers broke into the Kurdish center in Paris after seeing bloodstains at the door.

One of the three activists killed execution-style was a founder of the PKK rebel group.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#174389 Jan 11, 2013
Randy Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct your posts all you want to, It doesn't matter what the gays want, they may not appropriate a title that is not their due. They covet something that they do not rate. Period. And I am waiting for the SCOTUS to hand down the ruling that states that they have no authority to legislate marriage, as we already know. California will reinstate the ban on SSM, as the majority of its population wishes. And then, other states will follow suit.
hahahahaha
ahhahahaahah
ahahahahahahha

You're really quite clueless, aren't you?
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#174390 Jan 11, 2013
Randy Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean "like that", or do you mean "that" ?
Three does not equal two.

Are you arithmetically challenged?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#174391 Jan 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
We know Rose don't we? I think in her ignorance she actually thought the Roman catholics were there at the time, and probably assumed in her ignorance they did wipe the romans out! And yes, the saxons were the ones who defeated the romans!
Man up. I didn't say anything about the Roman Catholics and the fall of Rome. They weren't around at the time.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#174392 Jan 11, 2013
Randy Hudson wrote:
<quoted text> It refused to allow any marriage, except between man and woman. Thus excluding polygamy, as it did SSM. Any argument that defends SSM must also defend polygamy, for the exact same reasons, freedom of choice. Silly, that was easy. Go apply some make-up and think of yourself as normal. LOL As if you can...
hahahahaha
hahahahaha
ahahahahah

Did you learn THAT from Jane Dough, too?

So if Prop 8 is overturned, does that mean polygamy will be legal in California? Of course not. It's a completely seperate issue. Prop 8 has NOTHING to do with polygamy.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#174393 Jan 11, 2013
Randy Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not bopring. It is a valid question. Answer it, as you expect your questions to be answered.
Really?

What's the question?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#174395 Jan 11, 2013
Is this thread done yet?
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#174394 Jan 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Child, child, child.
Can a judge overrule reality? Commonsense?
You have no answer for two simple assertions;
1. The government has NO interest in protecting or supporting a friendship.
2. It is unconstitutional bias to selectively support friendships.
Moreover, you deny the most basic roots of marriage. A cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Snicker.
Unconstitutional, eh? Your self delusion is growing daily...
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174396 Jan 11, 2013
CrimeDNA wrote:
I wonder how many crooked politicans will be caught witht his new push to collect DNA samples.
DNA is the 21st century fingerprint, the database collection can be done in a way that protects privacy but also protects people from violent criminals.
Lets start with the current city council members of Glendora, California first.
Non sequitur. The presence of a DNA sample does not prevent crime, it is to be used for tracking, after the fact. No protection there. And, if misused, can be used for framing innocent people.
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174397 Jan 11, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Three women are all deeply committed to each other. On what grounds do you dismiss their union as a "red herring" or "a straw man" rather than authentic love and self-expression?
On what grounds do you insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?
Mike !! Don't do this !1 You are daring dopey old Chongo to invent another stupid, self-named law. You and I both know that Chongo hates everything. I do not know what caused it to be an omniphobe. I only know that it hates the world that has obviously shunned it. Hates Christians, hates heterosexuals, hates the government. Just a dissatisfied anarchist....But you are inviting a new set of "Chongo-laws"...
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174398 Jan 11, 2013
WhooGos wrote:
Just more blogger snot from out of towners.
And when, exactly, did you arbitrarily decide the you are not the out-of-towner ? Idiot. Since this forum is being used to scorn Christians and the government, and The U.S.A in general, we are all involved. Shut the hell up.
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174399 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
how can you tell if i'm a hypocrite if i haven't printed or typed one single word about polygamy in this thread that pertains to same sex marriage?
when you start a thread about polygamy then we can discuss it.
until then, you know nothing of my opinion about that topic.
so, why are you here in this thread about same sex marriage trying to go off topic and discuss another topic?
You are sincerely confused. The issue is being used to rewrite the Constitution, so we must include all forms of freedom of choice. This includes, but is not limited to, polygamy.
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174400 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
original article linked at the top of this thread :
"Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage"
where, in the title of this thread, does it state 'polygamy'?
where, in the title of this thread, does it state 'marriage equality'?
talk about the court case regarding prop 8.
It includes polygamy, and incest, whenever Prop 8 is mentioned. Because Prop 8 defines appropriate selection of life partners. Prop 8 opponents declare that the government has no business deciding who we may marry. So, by extension, whenever we discuss Prop 8, we ARE discussing polygamy, AND incest.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#174401 Jan 11, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Come up with a single real example.
Rose_NoHo.

Yes. You are right. I love my Homosexual friends, the cute little lesbians, and yes, even the Homosexual and non-Homosexual Africans. Even so, while high paid agenda driven Government judges are busy overturning sodomy laws, they still cling to discriminatory old fashioned ideas that do not accord the same Constitutional rights of equal treatment when it comes to dog lovers.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/cysnlff

Ronald
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174402 Jan 11, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
so, good people discussing the prop 8 law and the legal battles regarding this law, it's apparant that we have a willful poster here that wishes to divert the discussion from something we're all interested in (otherwise we wouldn't be here) to something they want to talk about.
the only (and best) recourse is to completely ignore the bloke and not to respond to any of his posts that aren't germain to prop 8 or the judge's findings regarding the law or the ensuing appeals - or even the sub-topic of same sex marriage since that is also included in the title of this thread.
maybe if they don't have anyone to play with, they'll give up and go home.
LOL Trying to get him shunned, are you ? Good luck with that. "Guffaw" You'd have as much luck, trying to get us to ease up on Chongo.

As per your claim that we are all interested in Prop 8, I think that is not the case. Many of us here for fun. But, there are good people on BOTH sides of the issue. Mike raises points that ARE germaine to Prop 8, as I have already illustrated.

It is apparent that you wish to silence the opposition, is all. And I am opposed to SSM. He is not. So, who, exactly, do you mean, by your reference to "good people" ?
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174403 Jan 11, 2013
Impeachment Cobblers wrote:
<quoted text>
More hilarity from the short bus.
But, Winston, that "hilarity" is part of your appeal. And Brian provides us with the truth.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#174404 Jan 11, 2013
Randy Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be about as far as you can get, in your pursuit of critical thinking skills...guesswork, blundering about, in the dark. Lost and clueless. Like when you thought you'd gotten the better of me, asking to name some of the books I'd made mention of, and i gave you about 50, or so, titles. And then you had to drop the subject, because you'd been made a fool of. And you knew...I mean, guessed it.
Stupid, anybody can look.
I asked you to name a single book, promoted by GLSEN to children as young as five, that showed adult/child sex in a favorable light.
Anybody interested can look at
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...
and see I am telling the truth.
You didn't come up with a single title. Free clue, "And Tango Makes Three" doesn't show adult/child sex in favorable light, that was one of the titles you posted. And people can now see you are lying when you said I dropped the subject. I'm the one posting a link to the original challenge!
Now, scoot, ugly.
Randy Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174405 Jan 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim this, when yet you pro homosexuals are the most unimformed of them all when it comes to homosexuality!
<quoted text>
You idiot! They feared Jesus would turn people away from Caesar! The Roman catholics weren't there as a threat at the time! It was the saxons who wiped them out you moron!
Actually, it was the Visigoths. But, in the broader view, it was the result of many assaults upon Rome, and the effects of the lead poisoning from the pipes that they used to import drinking water. It degraded their critical thinking capabilities, much like today.
:-D

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
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Jun 30 ChaCha 17
drugs Jun 28 jacobjarrard76 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Jun 28 jacobjarrard76 12
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Jun 19 Dalton 1,538
legit pain P.I.L.L.S n m/ar.iju/an.a Jun 16 Monterey delivery 1
Migraine help Jun 13 Jaybarn 1
public officials violating federal laws Jun 5 Time for accounta... 4
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages