Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,321

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.

Full Story
laughing man

UK

#199779 Jul 2, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
Fail. Please try again.
First you propagandize that the colonic cultists are "loved by ALL, so get over it already!!" and later you talk about the Constitution protecting us from ALL.

Imbecile. You're better off with that broken record shtick.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199780 Jul 2, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
First you propagandize that the colonic cultists are "loved by ALL, so get over it already!!" and later you talk about the Constitution protecting us from ALL.
Imbecile. You're better off with that broken record shtick.
Fail again. Please try again.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199781 Jul 2, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
People voted on a ballot initiative that was unconstitutional, as it infringed on the rights of others. In the US, we have a system of checks and balances to correct these situations. Sometimes it just takes a while.
The people , twice voted, to clearly codify in law, a definition of marriage that existed since the birth of the republic, throughout virtually all of Western Civilization. No one's "rights" were infringed.
Guest

Aptos, CA

#199783 Jul 2, 2013
I really love my dog, can I marry him? I also think that I was born alcoholic, can we have an alcoholic parade?
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#199784 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
All your ignorant bigotry about religion and child abuse aside, if the parties involved sign an affidavit swearing they don't believe in God, would you then support polygamy?
Yes I would, as long as religion has no bearing on the law. But we know, thats a lie. The only people who wish Polygamy are doing so based on religion. Then what, child brides???? Frankie you are dead wrong and you know it.
American

Irvine, CA

#199788 Jul 2, 2013
Interestingly, Russia just passed legislation making it a crime for adults to indoctrinate children with homosexuality as part of their national plan to build up nuclear families, create national homogeneity, and sobriety. Children will be encouraged to focus their energies on high level math, reading, science, technology etc.. without their curriculum being diluted by divisive sexual deviation content and ethnic studies. They understand you just can't build a good economy and national identity on sexual deviation, addiction, divisiveness, and race symbolism.

That's all self-defeating nonsense. The next generation of Russian children will be moral, well educated, sober achievers while U.S. children are immoral, addicted, and graduating with student loans in a bad economy with degrees filled with divisive nonsense that makes them non competitive in the workforce.

They are on their way up and we are on our way down. Thanks homosexuals for nothing.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199791 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The people , twice voted, to clearly codify in law, a definition of marriage that existed since the birth of the republic, throughout virtually all of Western Civilization. No one's "rights" were infringed.
Yes, they were. Their right to marry an adult human being of their choosing was denied. And this was over-ruled.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199792 Jul 2, 2013
I think Ronald should sue this clown impersonating his honey. I will be a witness that indeed he has slandered, trampled on and sullied the poor canine's splendid reputation. Typical oaf. Buffoon. Lout. Galoot.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#199793 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The people , twice voted, to clearly codify in law, a definition of marriage that existed since the birth of the republic, throughout virtually all of Western Civilization. No one's "rights" were infringed.
Sup Paco? Twice the people voted for a unconstitutional law. Dang you people are S-L-O-W

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199794 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Tell that to the 8-16 year old children. Polygamy won't harm them.
You are advocating that the religious freedom given in the 1st admen. Grants religious freedom. YOU have posted it. Now if we allow Poly based on religious freedom, HOW can we deny them the very right to marry a 9 year old girl???
YOU cant have it both ways. If you support the religious rights as you have said then you support child abuse, rape, you pervert
Any abuse within any relationship, monogamous or polygamous, should be dealt with by any applicable laws. If all the adults involved are consenting, there is no issue. Perhaps you could explain this apparent contradiction in societal attitudes. A man can father several children with several different women, and it has become perfectly acceptable. However, if a man does that, regards the women as his wives, and they, as consenting adults, view him as their husband, society, and the state, views that as unacceptable. Why?
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199795 Jul 2, 2013
Guest wrote:
I really love my dog, can I marry him? I also think that I was born alcoholic, can we have an alcoholic parade?
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a contract between 2 adult human beings. So no, you cannot. You may have an alcoholic parade if you obtain the financing and necessary permits.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199797 Jul 2, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
Bye Frankie.
Bye. Glad you're leaving. You're boring and stupid.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199798 Jul 2, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that's the men from the Greek island of Lesbos.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199800 Jul 2, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
People voted on a ballot initiative that was unconstitutional, as it infringed on the rights of others. In the US, we have a system of checks and balances to correct these situations. Sometimes it just takes a while.
Was that the fault of the people that voted? You do understand the outcome of that vote says a lot about how people really feel.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199802 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Sup Paco? Twice the people voted for a unconstitutional law. Dang you people are S-L-O-W
Welcome to the People's Republic of Amerikka. Where in the constitution is marriage even mentioned? So if a federal marriage amendment, for the sake of discussion, is added to the constitution, would that be "unconstitutional"?
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199803 Jul 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I think Ronald should sue this clown impersonating his honey. I will be a witness that indeed he has slandered, trampled on and sullied the poor canine's splendid reputation. Typical oaf. Buffoon. Lout. Galoot.
Calm down KiMare / Frankie aka Sybil.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199804 Jul 2, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I would, as long as religion has no bearing on the law. But we know, thats a lie. The only people who wish Polygamy are doing so based on religion. Then what, child brides???? Frankie you are dead wrong and you know it.
No. you are wrong. Some if not many atheists are polygamists. But thanks for admitting you believe we should deny equal rights based on religion.

Did you see the article on gay polygamy in the Advocate? Those 3 guys aren't religious. I wish them well in their fight for marriage equality. I guess you do too as long as they are not religious?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199805 Jul 2, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they were. Their right to marry an adult human being of their choosing was denied. And this was over-ruled.
Please point to any state law, where those exact words are contained in any state marriage law? So if a person chooses to marry a sibling, that should be allowed?
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199806 Jul 2, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that there are many who give a flying f**k what you think?
Back atcha.*smirk*
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199807 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome to the People's Republic of Amerikka. Where in the constitution is marriage even mentioned? So if a federal marriage amendment, for the sake of discussion, is added to the constitution, would that be "unconstitutional"?
Not if Jizzy liked it.

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.

Rowland Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pacheco Trying to Bring in Housing for Homeless 2 hr Three Amigos 10
Pacheco Hits Royal Coaches for Lunch Today 2 hr Pig Pacheco 5
Burbank police officer commits suicide on publi... (Oct '09) 2 hr fuckere101 180
history of gangs in west covina (Dec '07) 2 hr AZUSA 2,599
Walnut High School is a joke 3 hr Conrad 2
Who's the crazy loon here who is obsessed with ... 3 hr Conrad 1
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Anonymous 28,762

Rowland Heights News Video

Rowland Heights Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Rowland Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:25 pm PST