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
152,321 - 152,340 of 200,351 Comments Last updated 51 min ago
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174514
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kippers wrote:
This means Piers Morgan, the gooseStepper that just will not go away.
BoyCott CNN and it's sponsors until this union-jack waver is gone from american air waves.
Being that this UK, idiot posts here too!
Idiotic little man! So you try and hide from me? Are you worried because you've got little on me, so you don't want to address me outright?
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174516
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
I like fighting fire with fire.:p
Because you are an uncothe man! You are an unbeliever who likes to fight the with your own mouth that belongs to satan against the the dark satanism of a traitor to God. Mikey will still be an agnostic, never converting to theism! He wants an excuse, like a traitor to God! God let him in his Kingdom but yet mikey rebelled against him!
Kippers

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174517
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rizzo's are out but Piers Morgan is close behing you.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174518
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax jackass. Your posts are stupid.
So you are the little doggie in the room are you? Have you ever connected to the church or ever known God? Are you here to debate, or simply to learn the truth, but know you don't have the ability to argue, as you go on the forum to deplete your ignorance? You don't have to learn if you don't want to! Just sit back and stick your feet up like the rich man lazarus, and hopefully soon you will die!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174519
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the person who said you are divorced, not you.
You are a vile person, and I often find the "save marriage" folks are divorced.
And your "argument" in this post makes no sense. Even if I were the biggest lair on earth, that wouldn't be a good reason to deny US citizens basic, equal, human rights, you dumb b1tch.
he doesn't even live in the u.s. he lives in germany.

the guy talks out of....well other parts of his anatomy frequently. i've read his posts for a few yrs now. he goes in cycles, repeating the same bumpersticker comments every few months. he thinks he sound educated - we see and know differently. he has no understanding of either the constitution or what judge's have found and written. he doesn't understand what "all" means in the 14th amendment in the u.s. constitution - he thinks it just applies to men since he says women aren't mentioned in the constitution.

as bugs bunny says "what a maroon".

just sit back, have a drink & a chuckle at his posts. at least he sticks with one name. LOL.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174520
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Randy Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, silly child, the grownups ARE talking, even if we let a few little kiddies, like you, join in. Let the poofs make up contracts, if they wish. They are not to be allowed to call it a marriage, any more than being religious makes one a priest...
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?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174521
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
tell ya what. take it to court regarding friendships. see what the judge says. then we can talk about what the judge says, kiddo.

when you need a contract to enter into a friendship, then there's a discussion. until then, well, you lose.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174522
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
he doesn't even live in the u.s. he lives in germany.
the guy talks out of....well other parts of his anatomy frequently. i've read his posts for a few yrs now. he goes in cycles, repeating the same bumpersticker comments every few months. he thinks he sound educated - we see and know differently. he has no understanding of either the constitution or what judge's have found and written. he doesn't understand what "all" means in the 14th amendment in the u.s. constitution - he thinks it just applies to men since he says women aren't mentioned in the constitution.
as bugs bunny says "what a maroon".
just sit back, have a drink & a chuckle at his posts. at least he sticks with one name. LOL.
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?
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174523
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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?
Propaganda?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174524
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174526
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174527
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Is that canned or dehydrated.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174528
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174529
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174530
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174531
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174532
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174534
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174535
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174537
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••