Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201885 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.

Lack of

La Puente, CA

#228547 Jan 27, 2014
This is such a boring subject or topic, because only the true idiots post their deranged felling.

Or lack of #228544
Cali Girl 14

Los Angeles, CA

#228551 Jan 27, 2014
Lack of wrote:
This is such a boring subject or topic, because only the true idiots post their deranged felling.

Or lack of #228544
Lack of spelling feeling#228545
d pantz

San Antonio, TX

#228552 Jan 27, 2014
This is a fake issue. A bunch of secularists who are just like zealots trying to tell everybody what to believe and do. How about tax equality and fair insurance policy for all...including single people who are gay, straight, African American, honky, Asian, Hispanic, Antarctican, whatever.... just all humans?? Why? Why!!!!? Don't tell me I don't understand the law... that's what the post is supposed to be about... how the law discriminates much larger groups that are largely ignored due to junk issues like ssm.
d pantz

San Antonio, TX

#228553 Jan 27, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Go tell it to Comrade Sheepie he loves this kind of petty bickering.
go fall in a sewer..
d pantz

San Antonio, TX

#228554 Jan 27, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a pile of horseshit to me. Sexuality emerges during puberty. That's not exactly a state secret. Why would anyone demand a 6 yr old self identify?
yeah its f**king creepy. Just let them be kids for crying out loud. I can think of another group that wants children to embrace sex.. pedophiles...wtf?
d pantz

San Antonio, TX

#228555 Jan 27, 2014
Cali Girl 14 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of spelling feeling#228545
how trife to point out simple typos. You lack substance.
d pantz

San Antonio, TX

#228556 Jan 27, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your fantastically unbrilliant post in its entirety. Telling me I 'censored it' is a weak attempt to suggest that somehow I took your words out of context. In reality, as anyone can see, I meerly edited out the parts not worth responding to.
It is as crisp and non-spamming as possible. So, wisebut, once again ....
<quoted text>
Uh, NO - that IS the reason. You are hopelessly dense?
And for the record, to expect others to repost the entirety of your posts when there is only a single part of it they wish to respond to is assinine - repost your own propaganda.
how about this: in a country where there is supposed to be no law respecting establishment of religion , no marriage should reward tax benifits and any private company or business providing public service who does is guilty of discrimination....
d pantz

San Antonio, TX

#228557 Jan 27, 2014
Sorry any private entity that rewards married people over other people. Correction.
d pantz

San Antonio, TX

#228558 Jan 27, 2014
Too bad most real discrimination is widely ignored..... http://m.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/0...
These should fall into the same group as gays but sadly they don't want to fight for anybody else who's been carrying the same burden they have.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228559 Jan 27, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe YOU don't think they are valid reasons, but a Canadian Court did.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...
Polygamy Linked to Harms
[228] As Dr. Witte summarized, for over 2500 years the Western legal tradition has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman who have the fitness, capacity and freedom to marry each other. While it has never been seriously claimed that monogamous marriage is a uniformly positive experience for everyone, in general and in most cases, monogamous marriage is said to bring essential private goods to the couple and their children, and important public goods to society and the state.
[229] As Dr. Witte further summarized, for more than 1750 years the Western legal tradition has also declared polygamy to be an offence. The denunciation of the practice has been based on natural, philosophical, political, sociological, psychological and scientific arguments. Polygamy, it has consistently been argued, is associated with harm: harm against women, against children, against men and against society. Dr. Witte reviewed some of these harms, as follows.
[230] The harms against women include: exploitation; commodification; social isolation; the inevitable favouritism of some women and deprecation of others within the household; discrimination; and, impoverishment.
[231] The harms against children include: the negative impacts on their development caused by discord, violence and exploitation in the marital home; competition between mothers and siblings for the limited attention of the father; diminishment of the democratic citizenship capabilities of children as a result of being raised by mothers deprived of their basic rights; impoverishment; and, violation of their fundamental dignity.
[232] The harms against men include: the unequal distribution of spouses and related ostracism of younger men forced to compete for a scarcer supply of women; the creation of a false appetite for patriarchy; inflammation of male lust; and deprivation of the essential bond of mutuality that is unique to the marital institution.
[233] Finally, the harms to society that flow from polygamy include: threats to the social order and a greater need for social supports as women lacking education and opportunity to enhance themselves, as well as their children, find themselves impoverished upon divorce or the death of their husbands; harms to good citizenship; threats to political stability; and the undermining of human dignity and equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228560 Jan 27, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a pile of horseshit to me.
What does a pile of horsesh!t sound like?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228561 Jan 27, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but old "Man Breath" doesn't address non sequiturs and double standards. He only cackles on about how he believes that he is the only one in here with some sort of education. It's his signature drivel. Then, when pressed, he claims that the same logic used against the SSM crowd (moral outrage) was invalid (when used against them), but stands as perfectly plausible when being used against Polygamists, who have more standing in society than SSM ever had... Historically or naturally... Herds are an outrage, but a sterile union can fly.... Then, Old Big Dope jumps in and crows about how he thinks he can have a priest arrested for being on school grounds, but a homo (with no official educational, or scholastic, agenda {except for maybe making kids aware that they may not be normal, but it is ok...}) may have free rein with the kids, who never had any business being made aware (as early as the age of 6, and even sometimes against the wishes of the parents) that they have to decide if they are gay, or not. Sounds pretty fuqked up to me, but this crowd thinks that "we have just made everything right as rain"... And many wonder why we have high crime rates, national morale is at an all time low, and the call for gun control is at a fever pitch.
Great post and 100% spot on.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#228562 Jan 27, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> how about this: in a country where there is supposed to be no law respecting establishment of religion , no marriage should reward tax benifits and any private company or business providing public service who does is guilty of discrimination....
I hear ya. Married people get the gold mine and we single people get the shaft.
Cali Girl 14

Los Angeles, CA

#228564 Jan 27, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text>how trife to point out simple typos. You lack substance.
What about the substance of that
post I was making fun of....STHU
Who asked you,you lack pants.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#228565 Jan 28, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your fantastically unbrilliant post in its entirety. Telling me I 'censored it' is a weak attempt to suggest that somehow I took your words out of context. In reality, as anyone can see, I meerly edited out the parts not worth responding to.
It is as crisp and non-spamming as possible. So, wisebut, once again ....
<quoted text>
Uh, NO - that IS the reason. You are hopelessly dense?
And for the record, to expect others to repost the entirety of your posts when there is only a single part of it they wish to respond to is assinine - repost your own propaganda.
They are denied because of all the reasons ss couples do not equate to marriage.

You dye your hair don't you?
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio

Wooster, OH

#228567 Jan 28, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, NO - that IS the reason. You are hopelessly dense?
You are looking to be a little denser. Is the sole reason that they want to be married the fact that they are gay?
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio

Wooster, OH

#228568 Jan 28, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say that. I agreed that moral disapproval is not a valid reason.
But it's not the only reason. Polygamy isn't going to become legal because the "moral disapproval" argument is no longer valid in light of SCOTUS rulings. There would have to be a trial, testimony would be heard, from both sides. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the anti-polygamy legal case BEFORE it gets to court, or it will pretty much be the same as this case: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...
Oddly enough, I'd like to thank you, for simply not throwing an insult in there, it's a little out-of-character, for you, but appreciated.
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio

Wooster, OH

#228569 Jan 28, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a pile of horseshit to me. Sexuality emerges during puberty. That's not exactly a state secret. Why would anyone demand a 6 yr old self identify?
Puberty, yes. And when I was in school, back in the 1800's, it was in Jr High School that we first addresses the issue of sexuality. Why would a first grader have to be confronted with the idea? What business does an elementary schooler even have hearing about it?
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio

Wooster, OH

#228570 Jan 28, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post and 100% spot on.
TY.
:-D
Dorn

Altadena, CA

#228573 Jan 28, 2014
First graders should be taught that some boys and girls are different and that it is OK. It is not OK to bully a school mate just because they are different.

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
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 hr dreidel dreidel d... 72,042
Is dr Carl Bergstrom out of prison Dec 9 Sascha 4
News Monterey County Gas tax repeal petition kicks o... Dec 1 BusterBear 1
News Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles (Sep '14) Nov 23 Christie Taylor 10
public storage delrey oaks Nov 19 jesidy 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Nov 13 Randy r 1,556
News cold, economy drive more homeless to seek help (Dec '08) Nov 12 Kenny Nichols 5

Monterey Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages