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 8,218)

Showing posts 164,341 - 164,360 of199,073
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188077
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
a person is always more than just their plumbing features.
Agreed H&M. It does make for an interesting psychological study. If a woman is sexually attracted to another woman, why would she choose a very masculine woman? No disrespect intended, just puzzled. The plumbing has got to be the primary reason. Yes?
Anonymous

Groton, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188078
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>hey i just saw where you had been making out with your brother husband .. sad you two leave a nasty oil stain on the concrete in the driveway... next time at least put speedy dry down once your finished
quit pimping out your daughters for wooden nickels! Its just not right! Be a better parent and quit teaching your children how to be dirty $kank$!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188079
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You can whine and pout all you like. SSM is here to stay,
Xbox...sigh...it is what it is, legal in a few states so far.
coming soon to all 50 States.
Time will tell...so far 32 state constitutions say otherwise.
You can either adapt to reality or go extinct.
Oooooooh...a bit of drama queen there. Poly want a cracker?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188080
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....32 U.S. states have constituionally defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman, there's only 50 states in the union...so at some point unless there is a change in the constitutional states, or the Supreme Court imposes SSM nationwide, more than half the country will be conjugal husband and wife states. SSM has a limit,
Tell me about the Full Faith and Credit Clause.....

How can SCOTUS justify a couple being legally married in one State, but not in another?
Anonymous

Groton, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188081
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>is it disel perfume for you today mixed with marlboro smoke... that oughta get your redneck brother fiance excited eeh
No its more like Seneca full flavors and chainsaw oil! Still stinking of whiskey, cheese, and hooker spit!? I'm sure you are!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188082
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that "the people" can just draw up any ol' petition and vote on it, eh? Are you forgetting about Judicial Review, or did youi never learn it in the first place?
No, not all. But as in California, how many time have the people spoken, have voted on a defintion of a relationship that applies to ALL men and women? Whats the point of allowing people to vote on such matters?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188083
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not all. But as in California, how many time have the people spoken, have voted on a defintion of a relationship that applies to ALL men and women? Whats the point of allowing people to vote on such matters?
I hope you'll study the last question you raise in your post.

What, exactly, is the point of allow people to vote on such matters?

As far as I can tell from looking at the various propositions that have been voted on in CA since the early 70s there has never been such a proposition. It's unprecedented.

Just because a group of people get enough people to sign a petition to put an issue on the ballot does not mean that it should have been there in the first place.

And that was the decision of Judge Walker.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188084
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever...you're just a bigot...a plain old bigot.
She (Pole Dancer) has a card. Therefore she can be as bigoted as she feels and not be a bigot.

P.S. I don't have a card.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188085
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not all. But as in California, how many time have the people spoken, have voted on a defintion of a relationship that applies to ALL men and women? Whats the point of allowing people to vote on such matters?
Pay no attention to "Xavier Breath" butting in, the big loudmouthed dopey yenta.

He's in Joisey and has absolutely no business butting his 2 cents in California politics. But of course that doesn't stop him from loudly spouting off dumb spiteful nonsense.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188086
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me about the Full Faith and Credit Clause.....
How can SCOTUS justify a couple being legally married in one State, but not in another?
They don't get to justify it. It's none of their business.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188087
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not all. But as in California, how many time have the people spoken, have voted on a defintion of a relationship that applies to ALL men and women? Whats the point of allowing people to vote on such matters?
Because it's the California way. Even their own Supreme Court said California should revisit their stupid voter initiative laws. Let them waste their time and money passing unconstitutional laws..... go ahead.....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188088
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't get to justify it. It's none of their business.
Really? None of their business, eh? ahahahahahahahahahahahah
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188089
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Pay no attention to "Xavier Breath" butting in, the big loudmouthed dopey yenta.
He's in Joisey and has absolutely no business butting his 2 cents in California politics. But of course that doesn't stop him from loudly spouting off dumb spiteful nonsense.
At least I'm not saying anything as STUPID as "it's none of their business." You are stoned.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188090
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? None of their business, eh? ahahahahahahahahahahahah
YUK!YUK!YUK!

I knew that would make you stop your silly boycott of Frankie.

But seriously, no one cares what some loudmouthed angry yenta from Joisey thinks about California politics. Butt out. Fix New Joisey. Talk to chubby Chris not us.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188091
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
At least I'm not saying anything as STUPID as "it's none of their business." You are stoned.
YUK!YUK!YUK! You mad jackass?

P.S. My state of sobriety is as irrelevant as some angry jackass yenta from Joisey's is.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188092
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....32 U.S. states have constituionally defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman, there's only 50 states in the union...so at some point unless there is a change in the constitutional states, or the Supreme Court imposes SSM nationwide, more than half the country will be conjugal husband and wife states. SSM has a limit,
<quoted text>
California proved the people have no say, the constituional process the people followed, the rule of law proved to be a farce. What is the point of having the process, if the result is a federal judge over rules the people of the state?
yeah used to be 50, now it is 32 and falling

California proved that anyone can put any crap on a ballot if they have the money,

if the supreme court fails to do the right thing what is going to be your line when it is put on the ballot again and prop 8 goes down in flames, an out of state organization saw a quickly closing window and capitalized on it, if put on the ballot today Prop 8 would have zero chance and I suspect you know that.

So don’t make me laugh about the “”will of the people” I have that on my side, that and justice as well
Mike Nor Cal

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188093
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Good job SKG of Harbor City. I feel the same way!
I just wish people would care as much about that NimRod in the White House. We need to band together. We cannot let him or anyone else strip us of our second Ammendment. Please call your local criminal in office and let our voices be heard! We are NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!
God Bless this once Great Nation, so it may again be The Greatest Place on Earth...
A-A-A

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188094
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

No parking?

No shopping.

The City of Glendora tries to make money from parking tickets?

I will not shop downtown village again.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188095
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Because it's the California way. Even their own Supreme Court said California should revisit their stupid voter initiative laws. Let them waste their time and money passing unconstitutional laws..... go ahead.....
Thank you for sharing those thoughts, however dumb, angry, biased and unrequested.

However we don't need some dopey yenta from Joisey butting in with his dumb 2 cents.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188096
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah used to be 50, now it is 32 and falling
California proved that anyone can put any crap on a ballot if they have the money,
if the supreme court fails to do the right thing what is going to be your line when it is put on the ballot again and prop 8 goes down in flames, an out of state organization saw a quickly closing window and capitalized on it, if put on the ballot today Prop 8 would have zero chance and I suspect you know that.
So don’t make me laugh about the “”will of the people” I have that on my side, that and justice as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 164,341 - 164,360 of199,073
|
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

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••