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
150,781 - 150,800 of 200,588 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#172534 Dec 29, 2012
California doesn't ban same sex marriage; you can have a religious same sex marriage without any fear of government punishment. Polygamy is banned, but not same sex marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#172535 Dec 29, 2012
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
You continually prove to us that you are truely a master of being stupid.
Speaking of "stupid"- I didn't know "truely" was a word.

I suggest you purchase a dictionary before you attempt to defame another.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#172536 Dec 29, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a valid argument.
Great, let's hear it.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal rights.
That isn't an argument as equal rights to not always mean equal outcomes. And no matter how much you peddle your nonsense, currently all people are treated equally as each and every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, wait, Mr. TTAG, before you say anything:
Equal protection.
What's yours? Wait, you don't have one, so you'll just take lame, off-target jabs at me. LOLSER!
The jabs don't take any effort, you make is quite easy with you consistent presentation of nonsense.

BTW Rose, you never answered the question. What are you more angry about- the color of your skin or the fact that no one cares?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#172537 Dec 29, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like they did with Loving v VA?
Loving v Virginia had nothing to do with same sex marriage.

"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced."- Hernandez v Robles

Even the court told you that you are wrong, yet here you are.
Oshoosh

West Covina, CA

#172538 Dec 29, 2012
Simple put, we don't really care what some out of towners thinks or posts hers at all.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#172540 Dec 29, 2012
The Judge has no right to overturn the ban on same sex marriage. See what I mean about democrats flouting the constitution when it already was against same sex marriage? Obama does that a lot too.
FlatTire

West Covina, CA

#172541 Dec 29, 2012
Oh you mean, flat-heads of the Republican and tea party, I hear they all gather at the end of the worlds flat map.
THE DEBIL

Slovenia

#172542 Dec 29, 2012
Q: SO, UM, HOW CAN YOU TELL THE JEWS ON TOPIX? A" THEY'RE THE GUYS HAWKING THE TEENAGED GIRLS TO THE POSTERS FO' MONEY.
THE DEBIL

Slovenia

#172543 Dec 29, 2012
WANT TO LOOK 15 YEARS YOUNGER? TAKE YOUR PICTURE WITH A REFLECTED LIGHT INSTEAD OF A DIRECT FLASH. DUH.
THE DEBIL

Slovenia

#172544 Dec 29, 2012
DUH!
FlatTire

West Covina, CA

#172545 Dec 29, 2012
You fizzled before you got off the ground Willard Mitt Romney, and to your Republican and Tea Party cheap actors.
Davis

Miami, FL

#172546 Dec 29, 2012
Great news... The next battle.... Gay divorce:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#172547 Dec 29, 2012
Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for male/female marriage. I doubt the court would have decided the same if the Lovings were a same sex couple.
Straight Sh00ter

Lawrence, KS

#172548 Dec 29, 2012
gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
If SCOTUS declines to hear the case then the Appellate court ruling stands, and same sex marriage, again, is legal in California.
So why aren't you posting in the gay cafe, hmmm?
linus simms

Orange, CA

#172549 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Hey Mona! Can I get a hahahahahahahaha? A big long one?
Trade you a YUK!YUK!YUK! for it.
quiet phagg-oid. keep your mental issues to yourself.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#172550 Dec 29, 2012
linus simms wrote:
<quoted text>
quiet phagg-oid. keep your mental issues to yourself.
Aw, SHUDDUP you dopey Jackass!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#172551 Dec 29, 2012
YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#172552 Dec 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Great, let's hear it.
<quoted text>
That isn't an argument as equal rights to not always mean equal outcomes. And no matter how much you peddle your nonsense, currently all people are treated equally as each and every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Well, stupid, that's like saying everyone was treated equally under Jim Crow because everyone could sit in the section assigned to their race.

The "opposite sex" isn't the same for men and women, so they are not being treated equally.
akpilot wrote:
The jabs don't take any effort, you make is quite easy with you consistent presentation of nonsense.
Obviously, since you're not capable of any real effort.
akpilot wrote:
BTW Rose, you never answered the question. What are you more angry about- the color of your skin or the fact that no one cares?
Begging the question.(Look that up.)
How can I be angry when I'm laughing at you?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#172553 Dec 29, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for male/female marriage. I doubt the court would have decided the same if the Lovings were a same sex couple.
Dummy, you can't even follow your own train of thought. You were talking about states' rights. Well, stupid, VA is a state. OK, it's a commonwealth, but the principle is the same. VA had laws that violated the 14th Amendment, so they were overturned by the Supreme Court.

If they were a same sex couple? If down were up, I wouldn't need a bra.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#172554 Dec 29, 2012
Straight Sh00ter wrote:
<quoted text>
So why aren't you posting in the gay cafe, hmmm?
Straight Sh00ter.

Out of staters such as yourself probably are not aware of it, but the free-spending out-of-control Homosexual and non-Homosexual California legislators are using hard earned taxpayer money to teach Homosexuality to innocent little non-Homosexual children who attend expensive taxpayer funded forced California Government schools.

Most Californians love their Homosexual friends and the lesbians. Because California politicians collect most of the hard earned taxpayer money used to teach Homosexuality to innocent little non-Homosexual children from the non-Homosexual community, the Homosexuality issue is no longer an issue only of concern to our Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and the Africans - including AIDS infected Haitian immigrants.

Ronald

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.

Redondo Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr lazy posts 15,963
Giant Rubber Duck Forced to Deflate 13 hr wichita-rick 1
In the shade: Shade Redondo under construction ... 19 hr Veronica 2
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Fri Macko mono 5,000
Serial Rapist Arrested In LA; 2 Victims in Chicago (Sep '07) Fri So scary 89
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Thu Tank ever 7,926
Parents respond to Nicki Minaj's 'vile' music v... Thu shakey 1
•••

Redondo Beach News Video

•••
•••

Redondo Beach Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Redondo Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Redondo Beach News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redondo Beach
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••