Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201864 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.

Hey Brian

Alhambra, CA

#154935 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Californians never had the 'right' to same sex marriage until Walker's ruling. They took away nothing, you can still go to New York and marry, or ask your church for a same sex marriage ceremony (if they consent).
The issue is redefining marriage for everyone without the consent of the governed. You can tell we are on the right side of this issue by looking at the language our noble opponents use. See the quote above for proof.
Seriously, Brian,

Just go f*ckoff.

You know damn well that state had marriage equality prior to the passage of Prop 8.

Gawd! You're tedious.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#154936 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Judge Walker disregarded the consent of the governed when he voided their democratic will to impose new marriage law on every Californian.
Most same sex marriage supporters don't care about consent, they want to impose new laws by unelected court decree.
Same sex marriage is bad because they don't care for consent.
That's simply a LIE on your part Brian and ya know it.......Judge Walker didn't disregard ANY consent of the Government or any other procedural process.

Judge Walker also did NOT impose new marriage laws on California.......in fact all he did was rule Prop 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Plucker

Azusa, CA

#154937 Aug 15, 2012
Wonder what kind of Chicke Plucker would post there racist and threatening comments on TOPIX?

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#154938 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Californians never had the 'right' to same sex marriage until Walker's ruling. They took away nothing, you can still go to New York and marry, or ask your church for a same sex marriage ceremony (if they consent).
The issue is redefining marriage for everyone without the consent of the governed. You can tell we are on the right side of this issue by looking at the language our noble opponents use. See the quote above for proof.
This is a BOGUS lie........Gays and Lesbians had the right to marry when the CSSC ruled in the re Marriage ruling(May 2008). Same-Sex Couples started getting married legally in June of 2008 and continued to get legally married until November 4th, 2008.

My wife and I are celebrating our 4th wedding anniversary tomorrow........18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples have been celebrating their 4th wedding anniversaries as well.

You happen to be on the WRONG side of history and probably come the end of September........Prop 8 will be gone but for a bad memory..........Gays and Lesbians will be getting married again in California before the end of the year!!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#154939 Aug 15, 2012
Hey Brian wrote:
Seriously, Brian, Just go f*ckoff.
^^^Most same sex marriage supporters post profanity. That's proof of intellectual bankruptcy.

.
Hey Brian wrote:
You know damn well that state had marriage equality prior to the passage of Prop 8. Gawd! You're tedious.
No, California had an outlaw mayor in San Francisco who, unilaterally issued same sex couples marriage licenses. There was no law passed to permit same sex marriage in California. On August 12, citing the mayor's lack of authority to bypass state law, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were void.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriag...

If I'm wrong, cite the California state law that allows same sex marriage, tell us when it was passed and signed by the governor.

We can go over this again, if you like. Patience is a virtue.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#154940 Aug 15, 2012
Hey OldMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want a chicken farm, all you need is a bunch of hens and one cock!
There: There's your argument for polygamy.
I've got one wife and a lesbian to handle, your idea makes me a chicken.

LOL
Hey Numbnuts

Alhambra, CA

#154941 Aug 15, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
Minnesota Majority’s blah blah blah
So....How many of them actually voted? All your stats point to registering.

What the ratio of false voters versus the overall state?

And remember: The argument is VOTERS.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#154942 Aug 15, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
That's simply a LIE on your part Brian and ya know it.......Judge Walker didn't disregard ANY consent of the Government or any other procedural process.
When he voided the referendum, he disregarded the consent of the governed and the government.

.
RnL2008 wrote:
Judge Walker also did NOT impose new marriage laws on California.......in fact all he did was rule Prop 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
In Walker's decision, he ruled: "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples..."
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case...

Down with unelected courts imposing law against the will of the majority.
Godfrey

Oroville, CA

#154943 Aug 15, 2012
The Judge that overturned it probably hasn't had any sex in 20 years and when he did it wasn't worth a crap you stupid fools.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#154944 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
No, California had an outlaw mayor in San Francisco who, unilaterally issued same sex couples marriage licenses.
This was done in 2004 by then Mayor Gavin Newsome.......those 4200 marriages were eventually ruled invalid and void by the CSSC in the Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco(2004).

However some couples sued and in May 2008, the CSSC ruled in the re Marriage case that Prop 22 was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 30 days later on June 16,2008@5:01pm, Phyllis Lyon and her partner of 55 years Del Martin FINALLY had the legal marriage they had spent a lifetime fighting for........unfortunately, Del Martin passed away in August of 2008 and never lived long enough to see the battle continue.

Try doing some research on this issue before spouting your BS........today those 18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples remain very much legally married in spite of the passage of Prop 8.......according to the ruling by the CSSC in May of 2009 in the Strauss vs Horton ruling!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#154945 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>When he voided the referendum, he disregarded the consent of the governed and the government.
.
<quoted text>In Walker's decision, he ruled: "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples..."
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case...
Down with unelected courts imposing law against the will of the majority.
Again, NO HE DIDN'T.......and I'm sorry that you have difficulty understanding that all Judge Walker did was rule Prop 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

MY wife and I were legally married 2 years before Judge Walker EVER made his ruling on Prop 8.......today we have been legally married 4 year as of tomorrow..........Prop 8 didn't do anything to my marriage, but it did prevent other Same-Sex Couples from getting married.........the good news is that Prop 8 hasn't much longer before it is history just like Prop 22!!!
Local

Clearlake, CA

#154946 Aug 15, 2012
Hey Numbnuts wrote:
<quoted text>
So....How many of them actually voted? All your stats point to registering.
What the ratio of false voters versus the overall state?
And remember: The argument is VOTERS.
Hey numbnuts
The estimate of fraudulent votes was over 30,000 in that one study.

The conviction rate was low due to the fact that you cannot track down a person who registered and then voted with a false name.

You aren't very bright, are you?

We need a nationwide voter I.D. law.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#154947 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
If I'm wrong, cite the California state law that allows same sex marriage, tell us when it was passed and signed by the governor.
The re Marriage ruling by the CSSC in May of 2008 took care of that. It's ruling went into effect at 5:01pm on the 16th of June 2008.
Hey Numbnuts

Alhambra, CA

#154948 Aug 15, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey numbnuts
The estimate of fraudulent votes was over 30,000 in that one study.
The conviction rate was low due to the fact that you cannot track down a person who registered and then voted with a false name.
You aren't very bright, are you?
We need a nationwide voter I.D. law.
A. The opperative words are "estimate".

B. The report only tracked registered names of felons--NOT VOTES.

“well, really...”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#154949 Aug 15, 2012
KiMare wrote:
I laughed at your 'answer' and I bitch-slapped your hypocrisy about sensitivity.
I bet you really enjoy bitch slapping, don't you? You are still pissed women won the right to vote!
Hey Brian

Alhambra, CA

#154950 Aug 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Most same sex marriage supporters post profanity.
So now you have a problem with freedom of speech. Damn---You better cough up that chicken sandwich....

AND GAWD! You're such a titbaby!
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's proof of intellectual bankruptcy.
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

Oh--Brundle-fly! You slay me!!!!
Local

Clearlake, CA

#154951 Aug 15, 2012
Hey Numbnuts wrote:
<quoted text>
A. The opperative words are "estimate".
B. The report only tracked registered names of felons--NOT VOTES.
Hey numbnuts

In Hennepin County, 731 court record searches were performed (81% of the file). 289 were deemed to be
conclusive identity matches of felons who were not eligible to vote on November 4th of 2008. Another 161
records were deemed inconclusive due to incomplete or unclear public data.

I have proved my point. Voter fraud was/is a problem.

Now numbnuts, go and read the link/report V E R Y S L O W L Y.

Perhaps it will improve your comprehension. Your sophomoric stubborness is another story.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#154952 Aug 15, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand the power of evolutionary survival of the fittest.
What I don't understand is WHY a lesbian would dress and act like a man to attract ANOTHER lesbian???
I've asked you more than three times M?M?M! Are you butch?
But even though I am not "butch" I can build things and fix things (except for cars never got into fixing cars)I can play most sports I try (except football never wanted to play football) I can be girly but I can also make a grown man cry and stand my ground if threatened.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#154953 Aug 15, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
The re Marriage ruling by the CSSC in May of 2008 took care of that. It's ruling went into effect at 5:01pm on the 16th of June 2008.
So, no law was passed by the legislature, no referendum was approved by the voters and no governor signed same sex marriage into law.

Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#154954 Aug 15, 2012
LeaderOfThePack2 wrote:
Oh my such anger! Did my honest answer hit a nerve or blow your theory? Ask a bunch of women why they dress the way they do, 9 out of 10 will tell you the same thing I did! Womens Lib, well yeah duh...welcome to this Century and half of the last one old fart - we don't need you anymore.
You say I am stereotyping women...WTF are you doing? Where is your proof that lesbians dress as men to attract women, source please? Rest assured I know much more about women than you do, I am a woman, remember??? Men can never figure us out! So how much, dear Kimare do you know about how and why women dress and why do you know such things? Oh yeah the lesbian in you...nevermind.
While you say you are a "redeemed cynic and a barbarian"...you quote the Bible frequently. Most likely a fundie! Ummmm you are not allowed to believe in evolution remember, that is evil? We all just came to be, the good book says so!
You are angry about the possibility of gay marriage because you spent your life trying to make your square peg fit...you now question your entire being. I am sorry for you!
Big grin
<quoted text>
Ok I will answer your question differently....
Some woman like to dress comfortably and short hair is so much less of a hassle.
Some woman dress and act like men becuase they feel that is who they are... some transition and become men and some are content with just the appearance.
Some woman go for the "butch" girls for different reasons. When I was younger I dated butch girls that looked more like guys because I lived in smaller town and when she looked more boy then girl we didnt get stared at and we could be out in public in peace. But no matter how boy she looked she didnt have the extra equipment. And even though the outside appearance looked one way when we were alone at home that is all that mattered not what others saw.

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.

Tujunga Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 14 min Trojan 29,948
News Pomona approves ordinance to deal with loud, un... (Nov '09) Sun WordUp 32
News Club hopping: The Crazy Horse (Jul '08) Sun wtf 147
News NASA is developing 3-D Camera that can take ima... Aug 30 SpaceBlues 1
News Man arrested after woman is found dead in car n... (Mar '12) Aug 29 TamiC 8
News Alarming Tale of L.A. Sheriff's Officers Aug 29 hoodcats 2
Ola Amgos (Aug '12) Aug 29 hoodcats 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Tujunga Mortgages