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
166,261 - 166,280 of 200,581 Comments Last updated 52 min ago
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?

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#190432 Apr 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Updating it? How do you "update" it by eliminating one half of it, and duplicating the existing half? There's only two sexes. Marriage is a union of both of them.
<quoted text>
Why limit it to couples? Marriage, throughout human history has been either monogamous, or polygamous. Is it fair to deny those who love more than one, marital recognition?
<quoted text>
Again, why limit it to couples? Why maintain certain restrictions at all? If two men/women can marry in certain states, and those same states also allow first cousins to marry, why prohibit same sex siblings from marrying? There is no need to maintain such a restriction.
It's not eliminating one half. I'd suggest a definition of two people instead of one man and one woman. It's not duplicating either... it's not marrying clones. If you want to consider balance how do you know how feminine or masculine each person is; it's making an assumption that a man has traditionally male with a male mind-set and a woman is traditionally female with a female mind-set; or that their roles within a marriage or within a family will be corresponding. By the way, there are in actuality three sexes, which although usually goes unrecognised does not mean it isn't reality.
Are you trying to get me to trip over my own feet by bringing in multi-partner marriage and incest? What's your view?
Multiple partner marriage happens now in certain religions. These relationships also happen without marriage and outside of a religious reason.
The unacceptance of incest relationships is yes, for the family to be a simple and safe place without blurring lines; not that it couldn't work easily enough providing only adults are involved. Yes, it is a constraint of interbreeding as certain diseases increase their potency with close kin mating; but barring that...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190433 Apr 29, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
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"?
Yes the same people, it is turning that fast, and as more of our young folk turn of voting age, they are all on the right side of the issue as well.

Prop 8 is toast, regardless of what the court decides

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190434 Apr 29, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The Federal Marriage Amendment attempt failed in 2006. And in today's environment, it's even less likely to pass today.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190435 Apr 29, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I've told you several times that your posts come across as angry; as though you're always looking for confrontation and fights.

THAT is why, I believe, you may have been banned.

Whenever I've typed in coarse language, I am alerted by the TOIX system that my words may be offensive. All I do hit the "post comment" tab a second time and my post is created--blue words and all.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#190436 Apr 29, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's you who has the hidden agendas. Tell us the truth. It's all about the Benjamins. the money. The financial gain. Not about "love" at all, is it? Want some love? Curl up with someone, and get some. that's all you need to start with, not governmental protection of your fragile status.
waa....

waa,,,,

waa.....


Nothing you can do to stop it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#190437 Apr 29, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Oh puh-leez. You don't have the votes to get an amendment out of Congress.

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 7 hr Macko mono 5,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 15 hr Tank ever 7,926
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Aug 26 matches lighters 15,961
Review: Profix Jewerly And Watch Repair Aug 25 Jonnie S 1
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Aug 25 sex 692
City Manager Martin Magana hires Charles "Chuck... Aug 21 Commander Bunny 9
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Aug 19 Ned 123
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••