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
176,921 - 176,940 of 200,573 Comments Last updated 16 min ago
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204163
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The same applies to all of your posts.
His posts make sense. Yours do not.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204164
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to calm down.
Are you really that easily intimidated?
LOL
Turn off the computer.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204165
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
With this post, I get a picture of a stubborn little pouting child.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204166
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry I called you a gimp the other day. It was out of line.
I doubt that he's bothered. We've all called names.
LOL.
I'd think that something was wrong if I didn't get called something, at least once a day.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204167
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Poof wrote:
<quoted text>But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. its not a requirment in any state. So your point of being a steril marriage hold's no any water. We don't mandate procreation in a heterosexual marriage so how can you EVEN try to in same sex marriage. Now go away you really bore me.
As to "hijack the word", look it up fool, you will find that same sex marriage is found in the deffination.
Procreation isn't the real issue. The real issue is mismatched parts.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204168
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Amy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious he doesn't like women, he only fantasizes about male sex.
You're being silly. He is married. To a woman. Try harder, next time.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204169
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Poof wrote:
<quoted text>I can only speculate, but it would seem that you are correct in your statement. KMare seems to only address gay men and not lesbians in his rants towards the subject of same sex marriage. One can only think that he might have been in the old rectory a few to mant times with perverted priests. That might be the problem, he is to old to be an Alter Boy. What he needs to do is accept his sexuality and be one with it. Life is to gosh darn short to live a lie. You never know when the dirt nap arrives.
Poof out.
That's because Lesbians rock.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204170
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw hell, don't be nice to me you'll ruin everything.
That's what I thought...
:-D
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204171
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Vealed wrote:
Frankie wears a veil.
And eats Pork and veal.
Oh, I'm sure that you have told him off, properly.... I'm sure that you have him reeling, now...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204172
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Poof wrote:
<quoted text>The man says he is sorry, and you have to be a jerk. Nice real nice
He wasn't being a jerk. An adult would have understood this.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204173
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because I let you blow me doesn't mean I let everybody. You're special Hank. You swallow good.
He'll do that, anytime he gets a tickle behind the ears...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204174
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Pietro Armando wrote:
http://prospect.org/article/sl ippery-slope-polygamy-and-ince st
It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something.
You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.
The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling. Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of “fundamental rights” and equal protection. Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.
What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion.
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect,“don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.
Excellent job, sir.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204175
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you don't like it but you've given polygamists that "start from the ground up" already. You have paved the way.
I don't see how keeping the ban on polygamy can still be justified now that several states have abandoned the notion that heterosexual marriage is essential to social stability, why should monogamy still be insisted upon? Why is it OK to drop the gender part of "one man one woman" but not the number part?
And why can't a man marry his brother?
They won't even attempt to answer that. They can't. It isn't conducive to their views that they are the "Special" ones. They can't bring themselves to admit that fact. They're very selfish to turn their backs on others fighting the same battle.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204176
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Write to Boehner. See if he and the other TEAtards want to repeal the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1873. Test his metal.
That's amusing. The country needs an alternative party to rely on, and you mock them. The REAL patriots. It's no mystery why you prefer the current "stalemate" arrangement.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204177
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

I need more Lucky Charms. Give them to ME!!!!!!!!!!
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204178
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

MORE!!! I need MORE!!!
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204179
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Who was the numbskull that replied to my post the other day? the post about how race is hidden, when it involves "African-Americans"? The poster that posted that they hide all race?
This one's for you, asshat:

"Police in Washington state were searching for a convicted felon suspected of shooting and killing his girlfriend's 4-year-old son Sunday, police said.
The boy, whose name hasn't been released, was shot Sunday morning at the woman's home in Sedro-Woolley, in northern Washington, police told NBC station KING of Seattle. He died at Skagit Valley Hospital in Mount Vernon.
Sedro-Woolley Police Chief Doug Wood told The Skagit Valley Herald of Mount Vernon that the shooting was being investigated as a homicide.
Investigators were searching for Trevor Braymiller, 25, described as a white male, about 5 feet, 8 inches tall, weighing 165 pounds, with brown hair and "scruffy" facial hair. Police said he was last seen wearing a bright red or orange shirt."

From:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/21/19...

Don't try to argue with the master. You'll lose, every time...
:-D
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204180
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rocky Hudsony wrote:
Who was the numbskull that replied to my post the other day? the post about how race is hidden, when it involves "African-Americans"? The poster that posted that they hide all race?
This one's for you, asshat:
"Police in Washington state were searching for a convicted felon suspected of shooting and killing his girlfriend's 4-year-old son Sunday, police said.
The boy, whose name hasn't been released, was shot Sunday morning at the woman's home in Sedro-Woolley, in northern Washington, police told NBC station KING of Seattle. He died at Skagit Valley Hospital in Mount Vernon.
Sedro-Woolley Police Chief Doug Wood told The Skagit Valley Herald of Mount Vernon that the shooting was being investigated as a homicide.
Investigators were searching for Trevor Braymiller, 25, described as a white male, about 5 feet, 8 inches tall, weighing 165 pounds, with brown hair and "scruffy" facial hair. Police said he was last seen wearing a bright red or orange shirt."
From:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/21/19...
Don't try to argue with the master. You'll lose, every time...
:-D
Oh look! I'm judged "nuts" for providing hard evidence of the truth of my posts.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204181
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Why doesn't your pitiful ass throw out a posts that reads: " Nuh-uh."? Or something equally infantile?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204182
Jul 22, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

If it had been a neg..."African-American ", then it would have read: "The suspect was described as having dark skin..." or something equally vague, so as to confuse us. Imply that it was, maybe, an arab or a hispanic, or something...

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.

Other Recent Torrance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr truth told 18,743
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 5 hr Bee Keepers 4,977
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 11 hr facts faced 15,929
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Mon Mudflys to 7,901
Elin Vanderlip dies at 90 at her Rancho Palos V... (Jul '09) Aug 15 xxxAnnAxxx 85
Hermosa Beach California Parking Ticket Scams (Oct '10) Aug 14 Bud 8
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Aug 6 starbucks 2,262

Search the Torrance Forum:
•••

Torrance News Video

•••
•••

Torrance Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Torrance People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Torrance News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Torrance
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••