Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188073 Apr 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes more states have come over every year
Hmmmmmm....32 U.S. states have constituionally defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman, there's only 50 states in the union...so at some point unless there is a change in the constitutional states, or the Supreme Court imposes SSM nationwide, more than half the country will be conjugal husband and wife states. SSM has a limit,
but I live in California, and there are 18,000 legally legitimately married same sex couples here now, the lawsuit against prop 8 is about why other same sex couples are being singled out over the matter of when they wanted to get married
No chance of prop 8 not being overturned, if not by the supreme court than by the next election by ballot measure
The time has come to do the right thing
California proved the people have no say, the constituional process the people followed, the rule of law proved to be a farce. What is the point of having the process, if the result is a federal judge over rules the people of the state?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#188074 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
X Box! How ya doing? Nice selective out of context snippet usage. When did "gay" enter common usage to refer to homosexuality?
You can whine and pout all you like. SSM is here to stay, coming soon to all 50 States. You can either adapt to reality or go extinct.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188075 Apr 10, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriag...

On the March 7, 2000 primary election, Proposition 22 was adopted by a vote of 61.4% to 38%, thus adding § 308.5 to the Family Code, largely replicating the 1977 enactment. The one-sentence code section explicitly defined the union of a man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage in the State of California. Proposition 22 was authored by State Senator William J. Knight, and the measure was dubbed the "Knight initiative" in an attempt to link it to the failed "Briggs Initiative" (Proposition 6 of 1978) that would have banned gays and lesbians from working as teachers in California's public schools. The California Supreme Court invalidated the results of Proposition 22 in 2008.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#188076 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....32 U.S. states have constituionally defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman, there's only 50 states in the union...so at some point unless there is a change in the constitutional states, or the Supreme Court imposes SSM nationwide, more than half the country will be conjugal husband and wife states. SSM has a limit,
<quoted text>
California proved the people have no say, the constituional process the people followed, the rule of law proved to be a farce. What is the point of having the process, if the result is a federal judge over rules the people of the state?
So you think that "the people" can just draw up any ol' petition and vote on it, eh? Are you forgetting about Judicial Review, or did youi never learn it in the first place?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188077 Apr 10, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
a person is always more than just their plumbing features.
Agreed H&M. It does make for an interesting psychological study. If a woman is sexually attracted to another woman, why would she choose a very masculine woman? No disrespect intended, just puzzled. The plumbing has got to be the primary reason. Yes?
Anonymous

Conklin, NY

#188078 Apr 10, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>hey i just saw where you had been making out with your brother husband .. sad you two leave a nasty oil stain on the concrete in the driveway... next time at least put speedy dry down once your finished
quit pimping out your daughters for wooden nickels! Its just not right! Be a better parent and quit teaching your children how to be dirty $kank$!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188079 Apr 10, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You can whine and pout all you like. SSM is here to stay,
Xbox...sigh...it is what it is, legal in a few states so far.
coming soon to all 50 States.
Time will tell...so far 32 state constitutions say otherwise.
You can either adapt to reality or go extinct.
Oooooooh...a bit of drama queen there. Poly want a cracker?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#188080 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....32 U.S. states have constituionally defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman, there's only 50 states in the union...so at some point unless there is a change in the constitutional states, or the Supreme Court imposes SSM nationwide, more than half the country will be conjugal husband and wife states. SSM has a limit,
Tell me about the Full Faith and Credit Clause.....

How can SCOTUS justify a couple being legally married in one State, but not in another?
Anonymous

Conklin, NY

#188081 Apr 10, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>is it disel perfume for you today mixed with marlboro smoke... that oughta get your redneck brother fiance excited eeh
No its more like Seneca full flavors and chainsaw oil! Still stinking of whiskey, cheese, and hooker spit!? I'm sure you are!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188082 Apr 10, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that "the people" can just draw up any ol' petition and vote on it, eh? Are you forgetting about Judicial Review, or did youi never learn it in the first place?
No, not all. But as in California, how many time have the people spoken, have voted on a defintion of a relationship that applies to ALL men and women? Whats the point of allowing people to vote on such matters?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#188083 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not all. But as in California, how many time have the people spoken, have voted on a defintion of a relationship that applies to ALL men and women? Whats the point of allowing people to vote on such matters?
I hope you'll study the last question you raise in your post.

What, exactly, is the point of allow people to vote on such matters?

As far as I can tell from looking at the various propositions that have been voted on in CA since the early 70s there has never been such a proposition. It's unprecedented.

Just because a group of people get enough people to sign a petition to put an issue on the ballot does not mean that it should have been there in the first place.

And that was the decision of Judge Walker.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188084 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever...you're just a bigot...a plain old bigot.
She (Pole Dancer) has a card. Therefore she can be as bigoted as she feels and not be a bigot.

P.S. I don't have a card.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188085 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not all. But as in California, how many time have the people spoken, have voted on a defintion of a relationship that applies to ALL men and women? Whats the point of allowing people to vote on such matters?
Pay no attention to "Xavier Breath" butting in, the big loudmouthed dopey yenta.

He's in Joisey and has absolutely no business butting his 2 cents in California politics. But of course that doesn't stop him from loudly spouting off dumb spiteful nonsense.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188086 Apr 10, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me about the Full Faith and Credit Clause.....
How can SCOTUS justify a couple being legally married in one State, but not in another?
They don't get to justify it. It's none of their business.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#188087 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not all. But as in California, how many time have the people spoken, have voted on a defintion of a relationship that applies to ALL men and women? Whats the point of allowing people to vote on such matters?
Because it's the California way. Even their own Supreme Court said California should revisit their stupid voter initiative laws. Let them waste their time and money passing unconstitutional laws..... go ahead.....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#188088 Apr 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't get to justify it. It's none of their business.
Really? None of their business, eh? ahahahahahahahahahahahah
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#188089 Apr 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Pay no attention to "Xavier Breath" butting in, the big loudmouthed dopey yenta.
He's in Joisey and has absolutely no business butting his 2 cents in California politics. But of course that doesn't stop him from loudly spouting off dumb spiteful nonsense.
At least I'm not saying anything as STUPID as "it's none of their business." You are stoned.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188090 Apr 10, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? None of their business, eh? ahahahahahahahahahahahah
YUK!YUK!YUK!

I knew that would make you stop your silly boycott of Frankie.

But seriously, no one cares what some loudmouthed angry yenta from Joisey thinks about California politics. Butt out. Fix New Joisey. Talk to chubby Chris not us.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188091 Apr 10, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
At least I'm not saying anything as STUPID as "it's none of their business." You are stoned.
YUK!YUK!YUK! You mad jackass?

P.S. My state of sobriety is as irrelevant as some angry jackass yenta from Joisey's is.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#188092 Apr 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....32 U.S. states have constituionally defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman, there's only 50 states in the union...so at some point unless there is a change in the constitutional states, or the Supreme Court imposes SSM nationwide, more than half the country will be conjugal husband and wife states. SSM has a limit,
<quoted text>
California proved the people have no say, the constituional process the people followed, the rule of law proved to be a farce. What is the point of having the process, if the result is a federal judge over rules the people of the state?
yeah used to be 50, now it is 32 and falling

California proved that anyone can put any crap on a ballot if they have the money,

if the supreme court fails to do the right thing what is going to be your line when it is put on the ballot again and prop 8 goes down in flames, an out of state organization saw a quickly closing window and capitalized on it, if put on the ballot today Prop 8 would have zero chance and I suspect you know that.

So don’t make me laugh about the “”will of the people” I have that on my side, that and justice as well

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.

Soquel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
DBS Lost (Jul '12) 13 hr Brotherly Love 106
Thorium power plant-Wave of the future?? 13 hr Brotherly Love 3
News Thousands come out to WAMM Festival (Sep '08) 13 hr Brotherly Love 240
"Gang" robberies in Oakland 18 hr ITS HAPPENING 1
News Cops and Courts blog: Man arrested for Santa Cr... (Dec '08) Apr 25 pinkysnarf 2
News Legacy of labor leader lives on Apr 24 Ignorance 6
News Santa Cruz election 2016: First look shows two ... (Oct '16) Oct '16 Dreaming Reality 1

Soquel Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Soquel Mortgages