Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201810 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190411 Apr 28, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof. All you have is marginalizing and name calling to offer to the debate.
No, that's you.
Chuck Conners

Covina, CA

#190412 Apr 28, 2013
Flappy Jacks is still open and marginalizing this blog.
free

Anonymous Proxy

#190413 Apr 28, 2013
free
Farier

Covina, CA

#190415 Apr 28, 2013
This topic is being ridden in to the ground by those born-again Mormons?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190416 Apr 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to argue that there are not 18,000 legally married and recognized same sex couples in California today?
Wrong! Go study and come back
The voters of the state of California twice voted to define marriage as a union of one man AND one woman. All those same sex marriages should not have legally taken place.
TimeGoes

Covina, CA

#190417 Apr 28, 2013
What's crazy gene been up to this past weekend?
Chuck Conners

Los Angeles, CA

#190418 Apr 28, 2013
Flappy Jacks celebrates the homosexual union of Frankie Rizzo and Rock Hudson. Gay love has never been better represented.
Guest

Cerritos, CA

#190419 Apr 28, 2013
The courts are there to protect rights when the population wants to take them away.
Thorns and ALL

Covina, CA

#190420 Apr 28, 2013
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190421 Apr 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The voters of the state of California twice voted to define marriage as a union of one man AND one woman. All those same sex marriages should not have legally taken place.
Yes and if you put it on the ballot today ( or the next election if the SC gets it wrong ) prop 8 would go down in a landslide.

That isnít the point, I could get a majority of brown eyed people to vote to deny blue eyed people the vote and get it to pass, It would then be overturned and unconstitutional, just as prop 8 will

We are not a pure democracy, we are also a republic, it is the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.

Go look it up in the dictionary, we are not an Athenian style democracy
Softners

Covina, CA

#190422 Apr 28, 2013
This must be the "sock hop" or something close to it?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190423 Apr 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and if you put it on the ballot today ( or the next election if the SC gets it wrong ) prop 8 would go down in a landslide.
You guys keep saying that.

Fact is, 31 States have a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage, that is only 7 States shy of a US Constitutional Amendment.

Just keep that in mind, 7 more states and it won't matter what the SCOTUS has to say about the matter.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190424 Apr 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and if you put it on the ballot today ( or the next election if the SC gets it wrong ) prop 8 would go down in a landslide.
That isnít the point, I could get a majority of brown eyed people to vote to deny blue eyed people the vote and get it to pass, It would then be overturned and unconstitutional, just as prop 8 will
We are not a pure democracy, we are also a republic, it is the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.
Go look it up in the dictionary, we are not an Athenian style democracy
Got jump in a lake.

P.S. We are a constitutional republic.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190425 Apr 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't be serious.
You KNOW he is...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190426 Apr 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The voters of the state of California twice voted to define marriage as a union of one man AND one woman. All those same sex marriages should not have legally taken place.
That's right. And his solution to the issue? "If it happened once, it should happen again.", while at other times, he reviles living in the past. Psychotic, eh?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190427 Apr 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and if you put it on the ballot today ( or the next election if the SC gets it wrong ) prop 8 would go down in a landslide.
That isnít the point, I could get a majority of brown eyed people to vote to deny blue eyed people the vote and get it to pass, It would then be overturned and unconstitutional, just as prop 8 will
We are not a pure democracy, we are also a republic, it is the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.
Go look it up in the dictionary, we are not an Athenian style democracy
More nutz...
You claim that the same people, that only yesterday (relatively speaking) voted for define marriage as "one man/one woman", have now undergone a major change of heart, and all will now vote opposite to how they voted, only a couple of years ago? Was something put into the water? Or, are you that confident that the vote is being "handled"? By the "proper" counters? You know the ones that I mean, the vote changers? The ones that add up all the votes for Romney, and then declare Obammy the winner "by a landslide"?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190428 Apr 28, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof. All you have is marginalizing and name calling to offer to the debate.
Proof? I usually have no shortage of proof, to back up my claims, as when I displayed the hypocrisy of "X-ed-out", when he called me paranoid, remember that? He said that I was paranoid for saying that this site is operated by biased moderators, then I pointed out how VV gets to type the words "f**ked up" without having to use 2, count them, 2, asterisks, whilst I must edit my posts for those same words? Remember that? Proof? I have made many posts that contained all sorts of rational arguments against what is happening, but I get banned for making good arguments. I have made many non-insulting posts, to many in here, and still I get called "a hater who does nothing but call names" by you, who has obviously not read many of my posts, else, you'd not make such a silly and inane claim. Grow up, sonnie. You're just a chump, and if you believe that being a shadow of Chongo is an honor, you're more addled than I thought.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190429 Apr 28, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
I consider being called a Rose-clone an extreme honor and complement. She rocks (pun intended).
Yes, you live in his/her/its shadow, and wish to measure up to someone else. Thus showing that you don't believe in yourself.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190430 Apr 28, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof. All you have is marginalizing and name calling to offer to the debate.
Is that, um , that something that a "drunken loser who has missed the train" should learn from? So as not to be an "elitist hater"?

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#190431 Apr 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has always been a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You are not 'updating' it, you are undefining it.
Why don't ss couples have the courage and integrity to establish their own defined relationship? Instead, you insult intelligence by demanding everyone equate duplicate sterile couples with marriage.
Societal health has suffered dramatically with the demise of marriage commitment. Children are paying the greatest cost. You want to further that decline with a radical dilution of marriage and family.
Not undefining it but REdefining it. Not to replace entirely but to broaden the definition to include everybody. It may have started out as predominately a cross cultural restraint on evolutionary mating behavior but in the modern day it is so much more; else infertile or old couples would not be allowed to marry. It isn't All about breeding; it's also about companionship, tax benefits, legal simplicity when it comes to such things as Wills, next of kin statements... and so on. Why should a marriage Only be about having children, and why should it Only be a man and a woman. In the strictest definition neither you or I would be allowed to marry. And as already said people of whatever sexuality definition of a couple are having children, by whatever means, outside of marriage so the idea of marriage constraining their behaviour is not happening. Exactly how does it harm heterosexual marriage to allow same sex marriage or to redefine a couple as 'two people' not one man and one woman?

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
Monterey Public Officials VIOLATING FEDERAL LAWS 6 hr Un agenda 21 and ... 3
public officials violating federal laws Sun Un agenda 21 and ... 3
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) May 23 ikestubbs 1,535
News Letters: Charter application superior (Jan '11) May 21 Yin Simons 13
News Police: Armed robbery at Santa Cruz sandwich sh... May 11 bump 1
News Looking Back at Monterey County: Fire on Canner... May 5 Joe 1
News Seaside street name could honor Obama (Feb '10) May 1 Apathy 99
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]