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
160,501 - 160,520 of 200,576 Comments Last updated 9 hrs ago
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183862 Mar 19, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not a theocracy, stud. We're a democratic republic.
Dusty Mangina.

Exactly. The republican rule is subject to Constitutional law. Unlike what the post 60s 70s era Godless "Liberal" political activists would have us believe, "Democratic republics" are antipodal to that of "a democracy".

Our Christian non-Homosexual founding fathers were sticklers about detail. Yet, at 1787 years after Jesus, they all affixed their name to the document that established the Constitution "in the year of our Lord, 1787". The best Godless "Liberals" and their community activist bedfellows can come up to explain this away is that the dead White men suddenly became disinterested in detail, in favor of "a living Constitution".

Source: http://tinyurl.com/cxrqmhv

Ronald
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183863 Mar 19, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Dusty Mangina.
Exactly. The republican rule is subject to Constitutional law. Unlike what the post 60s 70s era Godless "Liberal" political activists would have us believe, "Democratic republics" are antipodal to that of "a democracy".
Our Christian non-Homosexual founding fathers were sticklers about detail. Yet, at 1787 years after Jesus, they all affixed their name to the document that established the Constitution "in the year of our Lord, 1787". The best Godless "Liberals" and their community activist bedfellows can come up to explain this away is that the dead White men suddenly became disinterested in detail, in favor of "a living Constitution".
Source: http://tinyurl.com/cxrqmhv
Ronald
You are free to believe in your little religion, but you are not going to force your beliefs on any of the rest of us.

It was written as a living constitution from the beginning, it was our founders that coined the phrase "separation of church and state" it was John Adams that signed the treaty of Tripoli which stated we were not in any way formed as a Christian nation.

You are free to believe your religion, but we will not accept your tynary of law, you will not enforce your petty little belief system on the rest of us.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183864 Mar 19, 2013
Apollo11911 wrote:
<quoted text>Or just because a few states have allowed slavery in their states, why should they have to as well, when the voters of the latter states said no?
For a god....sometimes you sound like a mere mortal. Comparing the issue of slavery, which was ultimately settled after much death and destruction to voting to maintain the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife, is ridiculous. Oh Madone!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183865 Mar 19, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like a gay man to marry your daughter?
I would like my daughter to marry a man who will treat her with love and respect. If he's gay, they both know it, and they choose to marry, would you say its not a valid union of husband and wife. Suppose a lesbian married a man, would their marriage be any less valid than any other husband and wife union?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183866 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
For a god....sometimes you sound like a mere mortal. Comparing the issue of slavery, which was ultimately settled after much death and destruction to voting to maintain the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife, is ridiculous. Oh Madone!
Yes women got the vote with only a fraction of the violence ( although there was some ) and homosexuals will get the right to marry with even less.

Our nation is growing up, freedom is won by showing people what is right, instead of violence

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183867 Mar 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to believe in your little religion, but you are not going to force your beliefs on any of the rest of us.
It was written as a living constitution from the beginning, it was our founders that coined the phrase "separation of church and state" it was John Adams that signed the treaty of Tripoli which stated we were not in any way formed as a Christian nation.
You are free to believe your religion, but we will not accept your tynary of law, you will not enforce your petty little belief system on the rest of us.
Surprise Big D, that "petty little belief system" is all around, and to a certain degree, "forced on the rest of us". In God We Trust adorns our currency, the President is sworn into office with his hand on a Bible, cities are named after saints, sports teams have religious names, and on it goes. You should come down from the mountain more often, mix among the common folk.
Yes yes yes

La Puente, CA

#183869 Mar 19, 2013
Yes, the people who post stupid comments and or positions are as nuts as RNC, GOP, Republican and Tea Party member's.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183870 Mar 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes women got the vote with only a fraction of the violence ( although there was some ) and homosexuals will get the right to marry with even less.
Our nation is growing up, freedom is won by showing people what is right, instead of violence
Homosexuals have the right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife valid in all fifty states, just like any body else. The catch is they don't wish to exercise that right like everybody else.
Freedom is not unlimited, nor without government regulation. Marriage is no different. Why do you speak of freedom by subjecting one's intimate personal sexual relationship to government control? It seems what you ask for is not what you actually seek.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183871 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Surprise Big D, that "petty little belief system" is all around, and to a certain degree, "forced on the rest of us". In God We Trust adorns our currency, the President is sworn into office with his hand on a Bible, cities are named after saints, sports teams have religious names, and on it goes. You should come down from the mountain more often, mix among the common folk.
Oh I am aware of that, I have my own petty beliefs, donít take offense.

Every president does so by a choice, that is their choice. I did notice when I was a jury Forman recently that all mention of it has been removed from the courts, only affirming they will tell the truth. I donít mind when your beliefs and rules of that belief is a choice, it is only when you try to apply your beliefs to others not of you belief that you are going to run into a brick wall.

I actually defend your right to believe this religion or that religion and I will help see to it that your children are not preached to from a position of authority by other religions as well.

I was never on the mountain so to speak, but many others that have been there for a long time are being shown the way down.

We are growing up, the time of Santa Claus is passing. It will take a long time, I know... but it is good to see it well started.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#183873 Mar 19, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read any of his posts? I know children who have a better grasp of logic. His posts are exercises in semantics and hyperbole. Like or dislike is irrelevant.
or, to put it differently, they're bumperstickers.

your last sentence is entirely true.

just wait until ol' brian likens same sex marriage to sex with a corpse.

ugh.

maybe in his little world that's how sex is - but not in most other people's worlds.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183874 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Surprise Big D, that "petty little belief system" is all around, and to a certain degree, "forced on the rest of us". In God We Trust adorns our currency, the President is sworn into office with his hand on a Bible, cities are named after saints, sports teams have religious names, and on it goes. You should come down from the mountain more often, mix among the common folk.
You are aware that our money also has the phrase "New Secular Order" written in Latin... right?

those phrases like "in God we Trust" as added to our currency decades after our founders, just as "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's and against the wishes of the descendants of the author who did not include such a passage as he didnít want the pledge to be any kind of prayer, as so apply to everyone equally.

You are talking to someone that knows a whole lot more about this subject than you realize.

You are free to believe, and others are free to believe something else, or not believe at all, and there should be zero difference in the eyes of the law.

If you donít agree with that statement, then you are not an American, THAT is why justice wears a blindfold.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183875 Mar 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to believe in your little religion, but you are not going to force your beliefs on any of the rest of us.
It was written as a living constitution from the beginning, it was our founders that coined the phrase "separation of church and state" it was John Adams that signed the treaty of Tripoli which stated we were not in any way formed as a Christian nation.
You are free to believe your religion, but we will not accept your tynary of law, you will not enforce your petty little belief system on the rest of us.
Big D.

You spent far too much time studying the Koran, and parts of the Talmud, and much of the Bagividad Ggita and several other religious works. Had you spent more time studying the Bible, you would be more familiar with well-established Christian Biblical principles. According to the instruction manual:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)

Ronald
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#183877 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like my daughter to marry a man who will treat her with love and respect. If he's gay, they both know it, and they choose to marry, would you say its not a valid union of husband and wife. Suppose a lesbian married a man, would their marriage be any less valid than any other husband and wife union?
it would be considered a fallacy or a sham of a marriage. even the catholic church understands this and allows those types of marriages to be nullified. furthermore, in some instances, those types of marriages would be considered to be illegal insofar if the couple is found to have married under the conditions as described (one being homosexual and the other heterosexual, for example)...they could be found to be trying bilk an insurance company for example, or perhaps for immigration purposes or any number of other possibilities of marrying under false pretenses otherwise known as "fraud"...it may not be fraud to the 2 involved, if they both know about the other, but they entered into the marriage with the idea to defraud for some purpose (insurance, pension, immigration, housing, etc). it may difficult to prove, but if you tick off the DA or SA in the area enough, they could come after you. so, do you really want your daughter to enter into a fraud?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#183878 Mar 19, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D.
You spent far too much time studying the Koran, and parts of the Talmud, and much of the Bagividad Ggita and several other religious works. Had you spent more time studying the Bible, you would be more familiar with well-established Christian Biblical principles. According to the instruction manual:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)
Ronald
right. so where is that phrase in any of the constitution, the bill of rights, or any federal or state law?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183879 Mar 19, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read any of his posts? I know children who have a better grasp of logic. His posts are exercises in semantics and hyperbole. Like or dislike is irrelevant.
Xbox

All jokes aside. The difference is he, and I to a degree approach the issue from a different perspective from you, and some other SSM supporters. Marriage is an opposite sex union, period. Its about the sexes, their sexual union, and what that union produces, children. We're all, 99.99999999%, products of a male female sexual union, including you and I. Marriage is society's means of connecting men and women, and whatever children they produce. Its not simply a governments benefits package, or a self esteem program. Fundamentally altering it can have serious long term consequences. If Americans as as a whole had continued to treat marriage with greater respect as it was several decades ago, would SSM really be under consideration or legal in a few states?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183880 Mar 19, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D.
You spent far too much time studying the Koran, and parts of the Talmud, and much of the Bagividad Ggita and several other religious works. Had you spent more time studying the Bible, you would be more familiar with well-established Christian Biblical principles. According to the instruction manual:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)
Ronald
Not at all, I wanted to see what religions had to offer, I have read your bible twice ( cover to cover, old and new ) all together and in context, I actually spent less time on the other books, as they really had nothing new to offer.

I did spend some time looking at religions that pre-date the Abrahamic religions and can see where most of the most famous myths come from.

You are free to believe all you want to.

and we are free of your beliefs and are not bound to them or their rules.

Religious laws are laws of choice, you can choose to abide or not, they are not the law of the land.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183881 Mar 19, 2013
No no no wrote:
<quoted text>
Boo hoo, but we don't like what the majority says, we want everyone to believe what the minority says, and do what we say, so Obummer and the DemoRATS are out! My rights are being violated, haven't you ever heard of equal rights, so I demand that the GOP, RepubliCAN, and Tea Party get their equal rights even though we're not the majority!
Lol!
You really don't understand America and the Constitution do you?
But that's OK it's obvious you've been fed this New American double standard and bought it hook line and sinker! So your confusion is understandable!
No no no.

It's no fault of our resident taxpayer supported schizophrenic. His perception always becomes more skewed during the second half of the month while he awaits for his Big Government masters to replentish his EBT card with hard earned taxpayer money. We can rightly fault him for doubling up on his taxpayer provided meds during the first half of the month, though.

Ronald
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183882 Mar 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
right. so where is that phrase in any of the constitution, the bill of rights, or any federal or state law?
heartandmind.

It is not there. The reason it is not there is simple. Unlike England, the founding fathers did not establish a State church. They, and many of their fellows, suffered discrimination and even persecution as a result of not adhering to the authority of the Church of England. Because of that historical experience, the founding fathers established a nation where Christians were free to practice the denomination of their own choosing, and according to their own conscience. Until the Godless "Liberals" seized control of academia, that was common knowledge.

Ronald

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183883 Mar 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
it would be considered a fallacy or a sham of a marriage. even the catholic church understands this and allows those types of marriages to be nullified. furthermore, in some instances, those types of marriages would be considered to be illegal insofar if the couple is found to have married under the conditions as described (one being homosexual and the other heterosexual, for example)...they could be found to be trying bilk an insurance company for example, or perhaps for immigration purposes or any number of other possibilities of marrying under false pretenses otherwise known as "fraud"...it may not be fraud to the 2 involved, if they both know about the other, but they entered into the marriage with the idea to defraud for some purpose (insurance, pension, immigration, housing, etc). it may difficult to prove, but if you tick off the DA or SA in the area enough, they could come after you. so, do you really want your daughter to enter into a fraud?
What about if they simply loved one another? Would it be acceptable to you then? Suppose it were an elderly mixed orientation couple who had known each other for years and decided to marry? Does everyone have to marry accirding to one's "orientation"? Are you familiar with Josh Weed?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#183884 Mar 19, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
heartandmind.
It is not there. The reason it is not there is simple. Unlike England, the founding fathers did not establish a State church. They, and many of their fellows, suffered discrimination and even persecution as a result of not adhering to the authority of the Church of England. Because of that historical experience, the founding fathers established a nation where Christians were free to practice the denomination of their own choosing, and according to their own conscience. Until the Godless "Liberals" seized control of academia, that was common knowledge.
Ronald
you had me until your last sentence.

it's the selfish "godless" republicans of the 80s that turned me away from being a republican. i couldn't stand how they treated "those people" they deemed beneath them. and still do to this day.

my pastor likes to say that jesus was a liberal - he believed in feeding and clothing the poor, healing the sick. and not charging anyone for those services - he did this freely and willingly to all those that asked or needed his help.

yea, "godless liberals". indeed.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 22 min Macko mono 5,000
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 68,955
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 9 hr Tank ever 7,926
First City Festival 2014 Brings Ugly Rock Metal... 16 hr JoeMama 2
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles 18 hr Money 1
Mills brothers face new lawsuits over loans (Nov '08) Tue Plain Simple 16
MONTEREY HERALD LOSS monterey bay, monterey cit... Aug 26 roensoledad 2
•••
•••
Monterey Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••