Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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.

America

Covina, CA

#230853 May 28, 2014
May 2014 Utah Senator Hatch: Gay Marriage Will Become Law of the Land, where you have freedom and choices.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#230854 May 29, 2014
America wrote:
May 2014 Utah Senator Hatch: Gay Marrage Will Become Law of the Land, where you have freedom and choices.
Ss marrage is inferior to marriage. Always only ever will be.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#230855 May 29, 2014
America wrote:
May 2014 Utah Senator Hatch: Gay Marriage Will Become Law of the Land, where you have freedom and choices.
Does that include lesbian throuples?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#230856 May 29, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Does that include lesbian throuples?
No, it does not.

Polygamy is not legal anywhere in the US.

Do try to keep up.

It might help your understanding of basic concepts if you were to learn to count.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#230857 May 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it does not.
Polygamy is not legal anywhere in the US.
Do try to keep up.
It might help your understanding of basic concepts if you were to learn to count.
Correct, they are adult citizens being denied their fundamental rights.
The "count" part continues to be irrelevant and hilarious. These rights are extended to individuals. Keep up the stupidity, it becomes you.
Rancho Navarre

Hemet, CA

#230858 May 29, 2014
The Domestic Violence risk is around twice as high in gay relationships (+/- 40%) as in heterosexual relationships (+/-20%).
People living in this degraded condition don't want anyone to know these facts, because they're trying REALLY HARD to make their bullshit real and acceptable. I'm sorry to be so harsh on this, but I've been to see something I WON'T describe... and i'm NEVER GOING BACK!!! EVERRRRR!!!
-scare you to death, man.
F choice

Covina, CA

#230859 May 29, 2014
What's your problem?

Haven't you ever heard of freedom of choice?

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#230860 May 29, 2014
Rancho Navarre wrote:
The Domestic Violence risk is around twice as high in gay relationships (+/- 40%) as in heterosexual relationships (+/-20%).
People living in this degraded condition don't want anyone to know these facts, because they're trying REALLY HARD to make their bullshit real and acceptable. I'm sorry to be so harsh on this, but I've been to see something I WON'T describe... and i'm NEVER GOING BACK!!! EVERRRRR!!!
-scare you to death, man.
What is your suggestion?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#230861 May 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it does not.
Polygamy is not legal anywhere in the US.
Do try to keep up.
It might help your understanding of basic concepts if you were to learn to count.
If two lesbians constitute "marriage", why not three? There's no compelling reason, once conjugality is expended as the basis for legal marriage , that monogamy must be retained. After all, "love makes a family", and three lesbians, one of whom is artificially inseminated, can just as easily be a family as two lesbians, one of whom is artificially inseminated.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#230862 May 29, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
If two lesbians constitute "marriage", why not three?
I see you are still having difficulty counting or understanding the very meaning of equality Pietro.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's no compelling reason, once conjugality is expended as the basis for legal marriage , that monogamy must be retained.
Pietro, does any state allow three or more people to legally enter into one marriage?
Pietro Armando wrote:
After all, "love makes a family", and three lesbians, one of whom is artificially inseminated, can just as easily be a family as two lesbians, one of whom is artificially inseminated.
Sorry, kiddo, learn to count, and find a valid argument. Your tiresome arguments of polygamy are irrelevant, lack a rational basis, and merely prove that you have difficulty understanding what equal means.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#230863 May 29, 2014
Rancho Navarre wrote:
The Domestic Violence risk is around twice as high in gay relationships (+/- 40%) as in heterosexual relationships (+/-20%).
Can you remotely begin to back up these "facts"?
I don't think you can.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#230864 May 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you are still having difficulty counting or understanding the very meaning of equality Pietro.
I see you dodged the question.
Pietro, does any state allow three or more people to legally enter into one marriage?
Another dodge.
Sorry, kiddo, learn to count, and find a valid argument. Your tiresome arguments of polygamy are irrelevant, lack a rational basis, and merely prove that you have difficulty understanding what equal means.
And the hat trick, the trifecta, three peat.....

Why if two lesbians constitute "marriage", why not three?

If conjugality, male female or husband AND wife, is legally expendable as the basis for marriage, why should monogamy be retained?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#230865 May 29, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
I see you dodged the question.
No, Pietro, I exposed the depth of your ignorance.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Another dodge.
Nope, just more ignorance on your part.
Pietro Armando wrote:
And the hat trick, the trifecta, three peat.....
Why if two lesbians constitute "marriage", why not three?
If conjugality, male female or husband AND wife, is legally expendable as the basis for marriage, why should monogamy be retained?
Pietro, learn to count. Why your argument is irrelevant has been explained to you countless times (thank heaven it has been explained countless times, because clearly, you lack the ability to count them anyway.

The reality remains that every state has marriage between two people, and no state allows marriage between three or more. Such a change seeks greater, not equal protection of the law; whereas same sex marriage seeks equal protection of the law for two people.

I'm sorry you are too dumb to understand why your argument is inept and irrelevant. It must truly be difficult to go through life with such a mental handicap.
The Normal Majority

Sacramento, CA

#230866 May 29, 2014
Marriage IS NOT a "right"!

In this country "rights" can not be restricted.
If marriage was truly a "right" then the state could not limit marriage on any grounds. If marriage is a "right" then no age or family restrictions can exist as an example.

A woman could marry a young boy or girl! If marriage is a "right" then two children could marry each other.......what a mess that would be.

SO QUIT SAYING MARRIAGE IS A "RIGHT"!!!!!!!!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#230867 May 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Pietro, I exposed the depth of your ignorance.
Dodge
Nope, just more ignorance on your part.
Dodge again.
Pietro, learn to count. Why your argument is irrelevant has been explained to you countless times (thank heaven it has been explained countless times, because clearly, you lack the ability to count them anyway.
Learn the difference between men and women....oh wait...you like outties, not innies.
The reality remains that every state has marriage between two people, and no state allows marriage between three or more.
The reality also remains that some states, either through ballot, legislative action, or court imposed, have abandoned conjugality as the basis for legal marriage within their particular state. So, why then, if that conjugality is expendable, why isn't monogamy?
Such a change seeks greater, not equal protection of the law; whereas same sex marriage seeks equal protection of the law for two people.
Soooooo what? Why does number, two, trump nature, conjugal or opposite sex, as it pertains to legal marriage? Please explain how two lesbians constitute "marriage", but not three? Still same sex, still "marriage equality", conjugality has been rejected, and yet you cling to this notion that the state must.....ohhhhhhhh....they just have to....retain monogamy. The bottom line is, you offer no compelling reason why three lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, and no lawsuit has yet to be filed in this regard. It's only a matter of time. It'll be fun to watch the rainbow coalition trip over themselves trying to argue against their own.
HaZuzz

Covina, CA

#230868 May 29, 2014
Page 9,976 and counting too #230867
Rancho Navarre

Hemet, CA

#230869 May 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you remotely begin to back up these "facts"?
I don't think you can.

I'm sure I can relocate my research books at the Denver Public Library if I EVER return to Colorado
Rancho Navarre

Hemet, CA

#230870 May 29, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>What is your suggestion?
THISisABSTRACT for most people, bear with me -
Although we are not aware of it, certificate of marriage is a contractual certificate of ownership. This is the basic reason we are so possessive of each other when we become "married". Until people wake up to this concept, they can do nothing to change it.
As long as people "possess" each other, we will remain as we are now. I believe we are stunted in our growth as a species compared to what we're capable of.
ALWAYS go on this rule and you will achieve everything you endeavor: YOU are no one's possession - NO ONE is your possession
real love never possesses.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#230871 May 29, 2014
Judges should read and apply law impartially according to precedent, not write their own marriage law to create new social justice.
Rancho Navarre

Hemet, CA

#230872 May 29, 2014
DO'T be side stepping the MARRIAGE/ POSSESSION issue, baby boy
It applies to all marriages between HUMANS.
"social justice" my ass - ya f*ckin' mule

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.

Richvale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Replenish the aquifer (Jan '14) 5 hr Rain Cloud 45
marvin and beverly mcquarrie (Feb '14) 5 hr Glenn Schoeneck 3
Ruptured pipeline spills 21,000 gallons of oil ... 6 hr GRANDPA NICOLAI 14
Global Warm-thers: Trapped by irony 7 hr Democrats Are Dan... 85
Democrats' Vanishing Future 9 hr Democrats Are Dan... 1
Police: Gray should've received medical care be... 20 hr Democrats Are Dan... 122
News SmartMeters being installed by PG&E in Butte Co... (May '10) Thu Sigmund Freud 36
More from around the web

Richvale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]