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
149,581 - 149,600 of 200,368 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170932
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Final note, before I go...
It's like arguing with children, isn't it ? We know it's profitless, but we have to keep trying, for their own good...
Yeah....it's real beneficial for everyone that you don't want 2 loving adults to marry each other.

Thanks but no thanks.

Get lost friend.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170933
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
What an unbalanced loser Dan is...He and Chongo deserve each other. If he had half a brain, he'd be half annoying.
I only have three brain cells and two of them fight each other.

Even given that my IQ is no doubt 4 or 5 rungs higher on the ladder of intelligence than your lost soul.

LOL!!!
Weaved

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170934
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Danna Cee - take it to the limit, then shut up.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170935
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

'R Hudson' and his ilk can be buried multiple times but just like zombies always seem to rise up from the grave and prove themselves to be an annoyance once again as if nothing took place.

It's the same with individuals against marriage amongst same sexed individuals nationwide which perplexes anyone with an IQ of 56 or higher.

Just my take.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170936
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
What an unbalanced loser Dan is...He and Chongo deserve each other. If he had half a brain, he'd be half annoying.
Dan is a big Rose_NoHo fan. Looks up to her. Thinks she's intelligent and insightful!

I heard all those pompous iceholes had a BBQ once. Can you imagine? Too funny!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170937
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Dan C wrote:
'R Hudson' and his ilk can be buried multiple times but just like zombies always seem to rise up from the grave and prove themselves to be an annoyance once again as if nothing took place.
It's the same with individuals against marriage amongst same sexed individuals nationwide which perplexes anyone with an IQ of 56 or higher.
Just my take.
That 2nd to last sentence is a real doozy!

Just my take.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170938
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me any case that they specifically mentioned gender of the couple having the fundamental right to marrying
That is a nonsensical question. You are asking someone to prove a negative. The fact is, and you can dance around it all you like, but the SCOTUS has never ruled anything other than the union of a man and a woman to be a marriage.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
......I mean it is more than likely implied or was the intent.....but what case out of the 14 that involved marriage as a fundamental right made specific mention of "1 man and 1 woman" with regards to the right to marry?
Why would they mention it? Each and every case involved one man and one woman, there was no reason to mention the obvious. But if you want to get anal, it would come at the very beginning of the decision when they named the plaintiffs and the defendants.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say SCOTUS WOULD toss Section 2 of DOMA.....I said the Justices COULD......I know your reading comprehension skills are better than that!!!
You are the one having trouble with reading comprehension. I was answering to the fact that you said they "COULD" and what a leap that would be as it would require them to completely ignore the 10th Amendment.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170939
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
This all could easily change.
Remember Einstein....once women could not vote. Injustices against an American's liberties will be looked over.
Hey Einstein, I already said that in the post you were replying to. Why don't you try reading it a bit slower this time?

"The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State."

I guess you missed the part where I said: " Could that definition change? Sure,..."

Keep trying Dan, you will get there.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170940
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are in for one sad day coming up pretty quick.
On Prop 8 there is really only 2 likely outcomes
First most likely, the narrow definition that will uphold the California courts in the specific case against Prop 8, which will allow Gays to marry again legally in California
If the court was going to do this, they wouldn't have taken the case as that is EXACTLY the way it stands now.

Get a clue Dan.
MXpilot

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170941
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

A Fox News contributor was punched in the face during a pro-union protest December 11, 2012 Tuesday in Michigan.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170943
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet if someone went back over the last few pages of posts, they would find that you have posted the terms LOLSER and and CONDUMB more than I have.
You use it daily Rose. It doesn't help your argument one bit.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170944
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
Skinner v OK was not a case about marriage. It was a case concerning using forced sterilization as a form of punishment for crime.
You should call the court and let them know they got it wrong in Loving V Virginia when they used the precedent set forth in Skinner v Oklahoma that marriage is a "right" when they made their decision.

I am sure they would love to hear from ya Rose.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170945
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the court's job. Why do you think we have checks and balances,
Really Rose? Where is the check on the court?

You would know the answer to this if you actually studied the writings of the founder's. But since you haven't you will simply reply with more of your nonsense that has no meaning or relevance to the argument.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170946
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Einstein, I already said that in the post you were replying to. Why don't you try reading it a bit slower this time?
"The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State."
I guess you missed the part where I said: " Could that definition change? Sure,..."
Keep trying Dan, you will get there.
The issue is not marriage but the definition of marriage????

WTF???

LOL!!!!

Fact is marriage of and by itself is a singular institution MORON.

And yeah dumbfuck....the right to get married to an adult of one's choice falls under the Constitution in that it's a liberty an American wishes to partake in which causes no harm.

You're one DUMB son of a bitch....LOL!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170947
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugly, I said Loving v VA stated marriage is a right.
And it does.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Actually Loving V Virginia did NOT state that marriage was a "right"- Skinner v Oklahoma did, they just affirmed it. Not once does the court say "Marriage is a Right" outside of the reference to Skinner v Oklahoma Rose.

That's why they cited Skinner v Oklahoma. Stop trying to act as if you understand law because you watch Judge Judy.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170948
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not marriage but the definition of marriage????
WTF???
LOL!!!!
Fact is marriage of and by itself is a singular institution MORON.
And yeah dumbfuck....the right to get married to an adult of one's choice falls under the Constitution in that it's a liberty an American wishes to partake in which causes no harm.
You're one DUMB son of a bitch....LOL!!!
Well, that certainly is your opinion, but your opinion really doesn't matter. As of right now the only group which is legally recognized with a "fundamental right" to marriage is those comprised of one man, one woman. That is why there is a case at the SCOTUS.

And it doesn't matter how angry you get, those facts don't change.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170949
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that certainly is your opinion, but your opinion really doesn't matter. As of right now the only group which is legally recognized with a "fundamental right" to marriage is those comprised of one man, one woman. That is why there is a case at the SCOTUS.
And it doesn't matter how angry you get, those facts don't change.
My opinion.

Funny...but it's my opinion that marriage and the definition of marriage are the same.

Brother...you're stupid. Sorry to bring it to your front door but you're dumber than as wet bag of hair.

LOL!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170950
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
pssssssst....
....pssssssssst..
..no one cares.
FYI.
You do Dan! Or else you wouldn't respond. Duh.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170951
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinion.
LOL!!
YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170952
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinion.
Funny...but it's my opinion that marriage and the definition of marriage are the same.
Brother...you're stupid. Sorry to bring it to your front door but you're dumber than as wet bag of hair.
LOL!!
Was someone suppose to be able to pull something intelligent from this post?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Palm Springs Discussions

Search the Palm Springs Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 14 hr Tounge inside Pussie Hole 655
desert hot springs, ca. unkept yards Thu Randy 5
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Thu seekers 4,900
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Thu Pole swap 7,855
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Thu rain or snow to slow 15,928
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Jul 28 snodder 2,252
Review: Rich's Painting Jul 23 Spectacular job 1
•••

Flash Flood Watch for Riverside County was issued at August 01 at 10:00PM PDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palm Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Springs
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••