Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 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

#188363 Apr 12, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
They really don't know? Haw-haw, it is because 2 wrongs don't make a right.... there is only 1 standard, they slid in, through a temporary mad moment. Prop 8 is going to make a triumphant comeback, as a Voter Initiative, and be upheld. You watch. The people will speak. And all of your so-called poll results will be shown as the hoax that they are.
But two Wrights make an airplane....sorry I don't get to use that line often.
Anonymous

Fitchburg, MA

#188364 Apr 12, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly have a vivid, drug fueled imagination. Where did you see them at, exactly?
Oh she didn't see me, she was looking in the mirror!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#188367 Apr 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A gay judge siding with a gay issue and back up by a Court that has more reversals than an old fork lift. In CA.
Didn't we have this conversation already???
Snicker.
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
joke's on you pal. the appeals court found that walker didn't need to recuse himself from the trial. the appeals court upheld his findings and rulings. now, your side isn't challenging whether or not he should've recused himself or not. guess you didn't get your memo out to them in time. well, that or they completely ignored your input.
and now we see the result is that SCOTUS is going to make a decision soon enough.
thanks for the belly laugh ki. you make me laugh every day.
I don't care who said what about a gay judge deciding a case like this. We both know it stinks.

Here is the bottom line. Why does a legitimate cause need lies, hate and distortion to gain legitimacy?

Those seeds don't grow legitimacy honey.

Smile.
Anonymous

Fitchburg, MA

#188369 Apr 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But two Wrights make an airplane....sorry I don't get to use that line often.
Obviously!! I think I would keep that one in the shoe box!
Anonymous

Fitchburg, MA

#188371 Apr 12, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you seen her daughte...whatever? She'll slice someone for making an honest observation...
Cowards use weapons! I could take her!
Anonymous

Fitchburg, MA

#188372 Apr 12, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder how fast she'd gut some 12-yr old, for merely asking "Are you a man or a woman?"
LOL! She's a dog with no teeth, I wouldn't take her seriously:)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#188375 Apr 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
According to VV, there is no such thing as sexual orientation dysfunction...that he wants to hear about.
<quoted text>
Which is why there is a pursuit and discussion of the cause of homosexuality. And your embarrassed gay twirl double step when the subject comes up.
And why I point out the violent abuse inherent in anal sex, the gay imitation of natural, normal sex.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of my comment indicates to you that I am embarrassed?
You're the one who seems to be in denial when it comes to how common anal sex is.
You equate it with gay men, but you never discuss the fact that many straight couples engage in anal sex.
And I've always stood by the fact that anal sex is hardly dangerous or demeaning. Those have been your words. It's only dangerous if you don't use protection.
And I'll only point out, once again, that with 40,000,000 abortions each year; not to mention the millions of unwanted children born due to poor planning, unprotected sex in the heterosexual community seems to be more of an issue than any STD.
Not embarrassed?

1. You claim a perversion is 'common'.

2. Then you try to hide behind heterosexuals.

3. Deny the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex.

4. And top it off by trying to divert by bring up baby killers as worse then anal violators.

You are embarrassed VV. Deeply.

Smile.
Clams

San Dimas, CA

#188378 Apr 12, 2013
Where can you find a good dentist these days?
Anonymous

Fitchburg, MA

#188431 Apr 12, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Look who's jealous. "Purr, and the world purrs with you. Hiss, and you hiss alone".
No, its more like hiss and you'll catch a boot to the chin!
Anonymous

Fitchburg, MA

#188432 Apr 12, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Jizzy,
L
i
c
k
M
e
WTF?LOL

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#188448 Apr 12, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, quote the statistics concerning SSSB abortions?
Look it up yourself. You've got a computer.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#188450 Apr 12, 2013
The California legislature isn't waiting for the Supreme Court. They are pushing new laws that mandate taxpayer and employer provided infertility treatment for same sex couples.

Same sex marriage is bad because of the facts of life.
SPO

San Pablo, CA

#188451 Apr 13, 2013
Contrary to popular ideas the US is not a Democracy in fact Democracy was considered dangerous by our 1st Pres. The US is actually a Republic which protects all individual rights not just the majority..this is why we have the courts. The founding fathers were far from perfect but that's how it is.
WHY VOTE wrote:
Ok, I don't really care if same sex people get married or are together in any capacity. I am for equal rights BUT.......... I am very annoyed that peoples votes don't mean anything anymore. What happened to a majority vote rules? What happened to the peoples voice?
My stance on this has nothing to do with same sex couples. This is just the latest thing a court has overturned or blocked that THE PEOPLE voted for. Look at AZ., look back at prop. 187 which would have saved is billions in illegal immigrant funding. The people of the USA are trying to make changes to better our country and the few judges are effectively disenfranchising us.
Again this is not directed at same sex couples it is major frustration over the majority loosing there voice.
WHY VOTE????

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188452 Apr 13, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent work, Pietro.
Grazie

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#188453 Apr 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said they were.
Yet you posed the question as
If you thought it was significant. WTF were you after?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite simple, its to be legally recognized as husband and wife. It also ensures that any children born into the marital relationship, unless there is evidence to the contrary, are presumed to be the husband's, the legally reconized father of the children. Presumption of paternity.


Guuuuhhhh! What is all this rot about paternity? We’re talking about marriage. Do try to keep up. Married doesn’t equate to being a parent.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the state, that "partner of one's choosing" is still dicated by the state, legally that is. The state determines from what categories, one may choose, or not choose. A man may wish his brother to be his "partner of one's choosing", but the state's says "no bennies for you"! If its okay for opposite sex first cousins to marry, but not siblings because of the possibilty of sexual reproduction, why would such a prohibition be appled to same sex siblings who want to marry, or perhaps just get the bennies?
The problem is you wish to use the "partner of one's choosing" line to support SSM, but either are unwilling, or unable to see the possible ramifications from that argument.
WTF are you yammering on about? Did Maryland choose my wife for me? Jebus aitch Kryste! They sure are crafty. Picked the right ‘un fer me, they did. What is this absolute load of bollox you’re trying to put forth as an argument. I might as well tell you that heterosexuals getting married is an affirmative vote for sisters marrying brothers.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been shown that men and women who marry tend to stay together longer than those who cohabitate.
WOW! Yer a friggin’ jeanyus!
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

Each state determines its marriage laws. States do not have to honor licenses granted by other states. For example a license to practice law, or carry a firearm.
Yup, but they ALL honor a marriage license obtained in Hawaii or Florida with the same respect.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#188454 Apr 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Except, at least legally in 32 plus states, and most countries. Of those states that have legal SSM, does the state actually pronounce the SSC, "husband and husband", or "wife and wife"?
Try another time waster. Is the thing to the left of the rear wheel on my dirt bike a sprocket or a cog or a gear?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Makes what a "lie"? So if a self identified gay man marries a woman, or a self identified lesbian marries a man, they're both lying? Even if both parties are aware? I wonder if Mr & Mrs. Josh Weed know?
Why are they marrying? A gay man will, more than likely, want to marry another gay man, not some lesbian. You might have married your wife just to stay in the country, but most of us would prefer to marry a person for the sake of love.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what I wrote:
A state could grant two same sex adult siblings a license too. The state can grant any license it so chooses.
And a state could grant two opposite sex adult siblings a license. The state can grant any license it so chooses………….

….. As long as it complies with state laws. s
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again so what? Why does it matter, to the state/society that two men/women wish to make a commitment to each other? Why does it matter that the state call a personal intimate sexual relationship between two men/women "marriage"? As oppossed to a civil union? Or even recognizing it at all.
It ain’t society so much as the doors it opens for the couple.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did this happen a often in American history? If so when and where? Pre colonial times? Colonial times? Post?
Well golly gee willakers. Do you think man started on US soil? Clearly the comment zoomed well over your head. For the sake of both of us, just forget you ever read it.
t so much that it matters to the state. It matters to the couple. This isn’t really as difficult as you wish to make it. I’m married. It was done in Maryland nearly two decades ago. It is recognized anywhere I go in the US. My nephew was married in the same state a couple years ago. It is recognised in Maryland. See the difference? Do you honestly need to be told the difference between a marriage and a state sanctioned civil union AGAIN?
NoShows

San Dimas, CA

#188457 Apr 13, 2013
This topic is just a spam virus..
PoorTimes

San Dimas, CA

#188465 Apr 13, 2013
Glendora, California had been a serious violator as well.

Under the old rules or guide lines (of which cities lobbied to change the rules to) each city could use 20% of the CRA funds for employees salaries.

This of course got out of hand and just about everyone under the sun was on the take from CRA funds, some cities lied and used 30% to 40% to cover salaries, this and many other reason's was the need for shutting down this "slush fund" called CRA.

Cities became addicted to CRA monies and based their entire budget on this source not understanding the full ramifications if it suddenly stopped because of their own self abuse of this funding source.
softracing

United States

#188466 Apr 13, 2013
Hey that Frankie guys comment,Is spot on.
StealersHall

San Dimas, CA

#188469 Apr 13, 2013
Most hardcore radical Muslim fell it's OK to stealing from NON-muslim's this statement is shown in the following story:

Laptop update - apology

My name is Dom, and I live in London, UK.

My laptop was stolen from my home in February 2013 and in March 2013 tracking software revealed that it had turned up in Tehran, Iran!

I shared this information with the UK police dealing with the matter and they said that they were regretfully unable to help.

I regarded this as the end of the matter, and the end of my laptop.

On 12th April 2013 I decided to share the data the laptop recovered on this Tumblr blog as an amusing story for my friends to enjoy.

It seemed to me that a laptop that went missing from London and turned up in Iran was like a space probe landing on a distant planet and beaming back proof of intelligent life.

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.

Torrance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 12 hr Onions 17 21,720
Hollander sleep products May 21 Need a good job 1
News California gubernatorial candidates tackle chil... May 17 Raydot 2
News Stolen Bob's Big Boy Statue Found At High School (May '06) May 15 Tjp 15
Review: California Deluxe Windows (Apr '09) May 12 Wally 52
Review: Cascade Windows (Jul '10) May 9 MRUTAH 57
News Harbor-UCLA Medical Center cited for safety vio... (Oct '11) Apr 27 Human 281

Torrance Jobs

Personal Finance

Torrance Mortgages