Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,999

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
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174524 Jan 12, 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.
please show us how you own the word, either via patents or legal documents.

until then, it's just a legal term and as such, is not owned by anyone.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174526 Jan 12, 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...
show us where in the court documents that polygamy was included or specifically named in any way shape or form in the law or the law suit.
Canned

Monrovia, CA

#174527 Jan 12, 2013
Is that canned or dehydrated.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174528 Jan 12, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Put more correctly: Things should be left alone, until need is shown for change.
....and that's what's happening now with the law suits circulating through the system regarding DOMA and Prop 8.

so far, all the seated judges that have heard the cases have agreed - the days are numbered for both laws.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174529 Jan 12, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Both genders have to be mentioned! It is meant to be a formal leaflet! And how would you have been on this thread for several years? You were probably around only 10 and would therefore not have the reading comprehension to understand him! Don't lie to me lil boy! And how come gay bath houses are only for men?
i've read brian's steady commentary on topix for a few yrs in this and other threads. ya know, there's a whole lot of other threads besides this one, buddy.

so, please do tell us what "all" means in regards to the 14th amendment. seated judges have already decided this, but i'm sure it'd be worth a chuckle or 3 to read your thoughts on how "all" excludes one gender or race or group from the protections and guarantees stated in the 14th amendment.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#174530 Jan 12, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
show us where in the court documents that polygamy was included or specifically named in any way shape or form in the law or the law suit.
It ought to be! It was part of marriage and a birth certificate that is states the spouse(Not Spouses, just spouse, hence no plural). And marriage certificates are meant to show this! Marriage to several partners aren't allowed.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174531 Jan 12, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Propaganda?
no dear. facts. don't you read or listen to the news?
Ouched

Monrovia, CA

#174532 Jan 12, 2013
Republicans want members of their party to stop making controversial comments about rape. That includes those idiots from the Tea Party too.

The recent backlash after Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey attempted to explain defeated Senate candidate Todd Akin's rape comments.

They can't help it, there stupid republicans and tea party members trapped in the 16th century mind set.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#174534 Jan 12, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
i've read brian's steady commentary on topix for a few yrs in this and other threads. ya know, there's a whole lot of other threads besides this one, buddy.
so, please do tell us what "all" means in regards to the 14th amendment. seated judges have already decided this, but i'm sure it'd be worth a chuckle or 3 to read your thoughts on how "all" excludes one gender or race or group from the protections and guarantees stated in the 14th amendment.
The blacks aren't accepting the forth amendment! They are being little scroungers to the country, so they ought to be kicked out! A blind constitutional people pleasing follower are you? We republicans still own the constitution, not you!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174535 Jan 12, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you bother supporting anti homosexuality but yet reject monogamy? Is it because you don't support your God lorally like a good believer and just to gain a little pride in yourself? You reject the branches you came from! What a rebellious child of God! I accept and loyally fight for Gods name on all fronts, and yet you are too lazy for that! What does proverbs say about lazy men? Were you lazy as a child as well?
I'm sorry that you are relatively new here, allowances must be made for that, I expect. I am a witch, stated that some time ago, but i do not refute the presence of God, my religion accepts all others, the only one that does, I think. However, I shall answer your questions.
1) I have no problem that people want to be gay, that is their choice.
2) I do not reject monogamy, merely including polygamy as a valid choice, when discussing the possibility of striking down Prop 8.
3) My pride is alive, and well, thank you.
4) My branches are British, so if you do a little homework, you might surmise that I embrace my branches, and trees on the whole.
5) You may fight for God, I have no problem with that.
6) As per calling me lazy, I must laugh, as I work between 12 and 16 hours a day, I drive trucks, and am often at work, both on the road and as a local driver. Never suffered from laziness, but thank you for asking.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#174537 Jan 12, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The blacks aren't accepting the forth amendment! They are being little scroungers to the country, so they ought to be kicked out! A blind constitutional people pleasing follower are you? We republicans still own the constitution, not you!
i just gor the biggest laugh out of this posting.

who owns the u.s. constitution?

the american people. all of us.

so now you show us that your a racial bigot as well. no surprise.
Kombat

Monrovia, CA

#174538 Jan 12, 2013
Glendora city hall has installed new methods to combat problems:

We are resolved to address these problems comprehensively and decisively. Since Chris Jeffers is under pressure to fix the problems he created.

City Hall has set up a whistle-blower system and made changes in its security department to discourage management employees from straying outside the law.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#174540 Jan 12, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The blacks aren't accepting the forth amendment! They are being little scroungers to the country, so they ought to be kicked out! A blind constitutional people pleasing follower are you? We republicans still own the constitution, not you!
Wow, so you are also a racist

Fitting for a person of ignorance that is all prejudice is you know, you cannot be prejudice without being ignorant
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#174541 Jan 12, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw shuddup you silly jackass!
Pricked a nerve? Not quite angry yet?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174542 Jan 12, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
With that philosophy we'd still be in the dark ages.
But, the Renaissance showed vast need for change, so that will not work here..
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#174543 Jan 12, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry that you are relatively new here, allowances must be made for that, I expect. I am a witch, stated that some time ago, but i do not refute the presence of God, my religion accepts all others, the only one that does, I think. However, I shall answer your questions.
1) I have no problem that people want to be gay, that is their choice.
2) I do not reject monogamy, merely including polygamy as a valid choice, when discussing the possibility of striking down Prop 8.
3) My pride is alive, and well, thank you.
4) My branches are British, so if you do a little homework, you might surmise that I embrace my branches, and trees on the whole.
5) You may fight for God, I have no problem with that.
6) As per calling me lazy, I must laugh, as I work between 12 and 16 hours a day, I drive trucks, and am often at work, both on the road and as a local driver. Never suffered from laziness, but thank you for asking.
1) You love evil!
2) Do you accept polygamy?
3) You've got no pride here!
4) You don't know shit about Britain, nice bluff!
5) But you fight against God himself!
6) You work hard driving both trucks and a mechanic? What a laugh!
Norties

Monrovia, CA

#174544 Jan 12, 2013
The North-Side gang has been running things far too long as I'm told in Glendoera, California.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174545 Jan 12, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
not allowed to call it a marriage?
these states and countries would tell you otherwise, bub :
Connecticut, Washington DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hamshire, New York, Vermont, Washington. Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden.
and since when do you get to define marriage for anyone else other than yourself? if that's the case, then who defined your marriage for you? and why did you let them?
Those aforementioned states are part of a current trend that is disturbing. I don't get to define marriage, I merely accepted that the world I had grown up in had common sense driving it, not like today. Today's world has gone mad. And I am against letting the minority of nutcases re-define it. It makes no sense to allow them to call themselves married, when marriage has a meaning that transcends time. If historical tradition means so little, then what good is it, at all ? What good is the title of "married", at all ? It is for legit couples to claim, not just any pretender that wishes to get some sort of financial gain from the government. If they wish to call themselves married, tough luck. Next thing that results from this will be calling apples oranges, and all sorts of mayhem will result from using the wrong words. Misidentification will make for much confusion.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#174546 Jan 12, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, so you are also a racist
Fitting for a person of ignorance that is all prejudice is you know, you cannot be prejudice without being ignorant
Not all blacks are evil of course, but many are dirty little fools! But you probably already knew I wasn't actually assuming it that far. You picked this on purpose! Getting even more ideas? Do you have kids? Probably not, yet you claim you have grand kids!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#174547 Jan 12, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
show us where in the court documents that polygamy was included or specifically named in any way shape or form in the law or the law suit.
"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" That is where, through omission.

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) 7 hr Frijoles 69,431
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) 9 hr Shelly 12
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Mon ForkBelly 7,962
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Mon Flaggstaff 5,083
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sun fancy 3
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sep 21 theos 2,276
Dennis W (Veeser) from Krakow Wi. Sep 19 Mia 1
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••