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 (Page 7,956)

Showing posts 159,101 - 159,120 of200,227
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182230
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Polygamy was already banned.
So?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182231
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to look at any links.
Loser punks like you spouting off ignorant statements have more "detractors" than a stray dog in Detroit has fleas little buddy.
Jesus H Christ wannabe, pedalling around Sacramento in a clown car with garish paint, and a calliope in the background, looking for gay blond men to blo, are you still here ?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182232
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb?
LOL!!!
Everyone from the President to Clint Eastwood want that bullshit ruling stricken.
Funny thing. We don't have racial segregation in schools anymore either.
Evolution my little cro-magnon. Happens.
You've got more lies than a Chongo, on crack, on a Friday "Gubmint check came today" night. Not everyone. Stop your lies, little man.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182233
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.
That ruling said nothing of or about polygamy, now did it?
Funny, I don't remember there being anything in Obama-care about a "tax", yet the SCOTUS said there was?

I guess reality doesn't really matter when dealing with the liberal social agenda?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182234
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Fancy with the language.
LOL!!!
Yeah....that's it.
Listen dummy....hang around. It's only going to get worse each year for those who think gays should not marry.
Keep talking a bunch of stupid smack, you've got your fan club rooting for you now, with all the Lucky Charms. You're about as funny as a broke-dick dog let loose in the hen-house in Alabama on a cold night.....

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182235
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to try, it's simple. Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. Therefore, Prop 8 did not ban polygamy. It was already banned. How much simpler can we make this for you?
My you do have a simple mind don't you.

Suppose the illegality of poly-marriages was removed tomorrow, based on Prop 8 would or would not poly marriages be legal in California?

I know this is hard for you, but perhaps if you get your crayons out you can connect the dots.

The "agenda" behind the proposition does not effect the result of its passage, it most certainly bans EVERY marriage aside from one man and one woman.

You can belabor the point all you like, you would still be wrong.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182236
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't find your missing IQ so I for one doubt it.
Aww, you're just trying to show off, to impress all the little boi's in here. And they adore their Danny-boi.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182237
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Having seen his wife, ummm all I can say is Dayummm
Yeah, I saw that exhibit at the zoo, as well.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182238
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like saying everyone was treated equally under Jim Crow because everybody could sit in the section assigned to their race.
Sorry, LOLSER, the "opposite sex" is not the same for men and women, so men and women are not being treated equally.
<quoted text>
They are wrong. And I've shown that.
<quoted text>
And by restricting who whites could marry, it restricted who non whites could marry, because some non whites couldn't marry whites.
<quoted text>
Men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't.
Women are allowed to marry men, but men aren't.
Men tend to make more money, so men are disadvantaged when it comes to choosing who to marry.
Go argue with the court Rose, that's what they said, and the SCOTUS had NO problem with it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182239
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, Skinner v OK was not a case about marriage, but about using forced sterilization as punishment for crime. Marriage and procreation were legally tied together back then, as it was against the law to have sex if you weren't married.
But you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, you don't now, and you didn't then.
Loving v VA was a case about marriage.
What case did Loving v Virginia cite when they stated marriage was a "right?"

They didn't make it up themselves, they copied it from somewhere. I'll give you a hint, it starts with Skinner and ends with Oklahoma.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182240
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Is polygamy already illegal? Why yes it is.
Why would a law then be crafted, to outlaw something that's already illegal?
Please, try to explain how sodomy laws were repealed, then ?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182241
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

And now for something completely different:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182242
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> the Court.
...Which has been bought out by politicians, lobbyists and campaign funders.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182243
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there is more than just the inherent harm, unhealthiness and degradation of anal sex. I summarize much of that diverse distinction in this;
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by an imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Smile.
You left one off of your diatribe, K-Mart...

If you repeat stupid your stupid bumper sticker crap often enough the whole world will come to realise you're full of shxt.

It is quite clear by now, you need a massive enema.

Smirk!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182244
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in two ways!
Jealous?
Ho, Ho, Ho.
Two ways?

Yup,
dumb and dumber
stupid is as stupid does

Care for a trifecta?

somewhere a village is missing an idiot
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182245
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Palin/Eastwood 2016
( oh please , oh please ):D
I would prefer Trump/Ventura..."Oh My" (twitches with delight)...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182246
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Clint Eastwood is a great actor, writer and director. Palin is silly.
We need a LEADER. A man on a white horse. Not on a political bandwagon.
Trump/Ventura...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182247
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Hillary/HOlder. 2016
( oh please , oh please ):D
Hillary ? Oh, HELL no. Emphasis on the "Oh, HELL no" part ...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182248
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
YUK!YUK!YUK! Giggling Joe Biden!
Ol' Joe did his part, last year, when they wanted to secretly institute "Operation Amnesty". Remember the hoohah about his words "...in chains..." to the crowd, about the Wall Street solutions ? How the blacks were calling for his blood, and even Hillary was calling for his head ? "He must not run again for VP" and "He must resign right now" ? That was when "Op Amn" was being secretly enacted. All across this country, there were 5-digit amounts of illegal immigrants, in every major city, signing up for "Op Amn", while the rest of us were oblivious to it. They knew about it, alright, but not a one of us heard about it, until it was over with. He towed the party line, and acted as scapegoat, and 3 weeks later, no-one even remembered it. Then, he was re-running for VP as if none of that baloney ever even happened. How did they all know what day to go into the big cities and claim "illegal immigrant" status ? That's Giggling Joe. I'm sorry, did I say "illegal immigrant" ? I should have said "a displaced foreign traveler", or "indigent tuberculosis carrier", or, perhaps, instead, the sooner liberals realize that illegal means, well, illegal, the whole amnesty situation would be easier to address. Unfortunately, liberals aren’t planning to make that realization anytime soon. There's a comittee, looking to “inform and sensitize” the media about how “offensive” the term “illegal immigrant” is to Latinos…and liberals. That’s right, we’ve now entered such a politically correct world where we shouldn’t call something what it actually is. Much like the current agenda to call SSM a "real" marriage. It seems that we having to accept things that we do not want. But, anyway, That's your "Giggling Joe Biden"...
Food for thought...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182249
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the fools said about SSM not long ago, Just a few short years.
Are you a fool too?
Ooh Ooh, I know the answer to that one....."Yes".

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 159,101 - 159,120 of200,227
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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 ]
•••