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 (Page 8,423)

Showing posts 168,441 - 168,460 of200,323
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
LaidOut

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192940
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

News update May 23, 2013 - Corner moves it's team in.

May 22, 2013 - a news helicopter has been hovering for about an hour over the big dig area. The house in question is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, three owners have occupied this house since Robert Byron sold it and moved to Covina, Ca. we have tracked down the first owner to buy this house and are currently investigating.

Glendora, California 1978 a 24 year old lady went missing, now the LA County Sheriffs Department is on the job and digging up a back yard in the city of Glendora, California 91740.

The person who reported her missing was her husband, the house has been sold three times since then.

Glad to see some real police department work is being carried out by the sheriffs department on 555 Essex Street.

The neighborhood kids like the husband, but no wife? Wonder what happened to her remains?
More insider information to follow.

According to sources the back yard of this house in questions was not landscaped and only consisted of tall weeds and hard pack bare soil, dead pets were buried in the backyard before someone landscaped the entire backyard.

Glad to see the GPD is doing crowd and traffic control.

Stand back, the Corner has brought out the dogs and shovels to start unearthing something buried in this houses backyard.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192941
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Same-sex marriages that are built on love, mutual respect, monogamy, and life-long commitment are equal to any opposite-sex marriage.
Close, but no cigar.
As you have said many times before, the potential for children in a relationship IS NOT a basis for marriage.
Why you continue your "What about the children?" campaign continues to baffle me.
Your TIRED "mutually sterile duplicate", "cross-cultural constraint", and "failure of mating behavior" material has gotten really old. Nobody believes it.
It's the reason marriage, as a distinct privileged relationship, exists in the first place. Otherwise why would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who?
Why should we deny same-sex couples access to legal marriage based on your opinions?
Now, I've answered your question. You answer mine...
Individuals can access legal marriage as part of a pairing recognized by law, not couples. Why should marriage be fundamentally redefined?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192942
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not the sheep spewing the same crap for the last couple thousand years.
I am in the majority of Americans that actually believe in the values of this country.
Your laughing at me is a complement, I would be embarrassed if you werenít, people might think I was also an ignorant moron.
But not the value of Americans expressing their will through the voting process, as in votes for prop 22, and prop 8. Apparently that value is not part of Big D's patriotism.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192943
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Close, but no cigar.
<quoted text>
It's the reason marriage, as a distinct privileged relationship, exists in the first place. Otherwise why would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who?
<quoted text>
Individuals can access legal marriage as part of a pairing recognized by law, not couples. Why should marriage be fundamentally redefined?
It isnít being fundamentally re-defined, we are just making it more inclusive.

The thousands upon thousands of same sex couples legally married in the US today certainly did not re-define my marriage in any way at all.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192944
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But not the value of Americans expressing their will through the voting process, as in votes for prop 22, and prop 8. Apparently that value is not part of Big D's patriotism.
I have also noticed that Big D's patriotism tends to be very authoritarian and very selective.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192945
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isnít being fundamentally re-defined, we are just making it more inclusive.
The thousands upon thousands of same sex couples legally married in the US today certainly did not re-define my marriage in any way at all.
If you make it too inclusive it will include everyone and then everyone will be married and marriage will mean absolutely nothing.
Brew Cee

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192946
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in the majority of Americans that actually believe in the values of this country.
My sphincter has value!!!!
Brew Cee Hypocreete

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192947
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isnít being fundamentally re-defined, we are just making it more inclusive.
Our inclusive club allows sphincters!!!!

White right wing Christian heterosexuals who care for Life need not apply!!!!
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192948
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you make it too inclusive it will include everyone and then everyone will be married and marriage will mean absolutely nothing.
Your marriage perhaps

They did not harm mine in any way at all, I think it is odd that someones marriage is so terribly affected by others being able to marry.

In court the lawyers could not find a single couple whose marriage was harmed by others being able to marry, it was a critical flaw in their case. Not one single example was able to be given.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192950
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it really take a bought and paid for "scientist" to see what a child can see?
Children see a lot of things... Children see cooked spinach and think you're trying to poison them. They see Harry Potter and believe in magic. Children can look up at the sky and think Heaven is just beyond the clouds--that their deceased grandparents are walking around on smoke, looking lovingly down on them from above.

That's why children aren't scientists.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192952
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
What a slut! She pulled a train "several times each" with two guys who were probably disgusted. Nice!
Didn't they ever hear of a turkey baster? Geez.
Well, you have never heard of minding your own business.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192953
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

You said: Close, but no cigar.

--Other than gender, there is no difference between two same-sex people and opposite-sex people who decide to marry based on love, monogamy mutual respect, and lifelong commitment.

You said: It's the reason marriage, as a distinct privileged relationship, exists in the first place. Otherwise why would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who?

--You say that marriage is a "distinct privileged relationship" because of the potential for children. Yet hundreds of thousands (millions?) of opposite-sex couples either do not marry even though they create a child or they break apart their marriage even though they have children together.
As I've said before, if you want to tie children so closely to marriage, then you need to radically redefine marriage as being only available to those couples who wish to have children.
Sterile couples, older couples, and couples who do not wish to have children for whatever reason SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to marry for any reason.
You realize the ridiculousness of this, yet you continue to yammer on about how closely bound children are to marriage.
Marriage is a legal contract between two people--not between two people and their children.
If children were a part of the legal contract between their parents, then if their parents divorce, then they too would be divorced from one or both parents.

You said: Individuals can access legal marriage as part of a pairing recognized by law, not couples. Why should marriage be fundamentally redefined?

--Marriage would not be fundamentally redefined. Marriage at its most basic level is a legal contract between two unrelated, consenting, adult people--two human beings. That is why 15 countries and 12 states and the District of Columbia have taken gender away from their marriage certificates.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192954
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Since all you have are slogans, you won't mind if I do nothing more than mock you for the rest of your miserable existence?
Thank you.
Since mocking people is all you have you must sit home every Friday night, alone, by yourself.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192955
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isnít being fundamentally re-defined, we are just making it more inclusive.
By claiming the husband or the wife is expendable? There's only two sexes. Marriage is already inclusive, both sexes are included.
The thousands upon thousands of same sex couples legally married in the US today certainly did not re-define my marriage in any way at all.
Well as long as Big D's marriage is not "re-define"d it must be okay. Let's not stop there. Bring 'em all in.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192956
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you make it too inclusive it will include everyone and then everyone will be married and marriage will mean absolutely nothing.
You guys want to keep marriage an exclusive action; a club for opposite gender people only.

That is the very definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

If you and others are so afraid of your particular marriages losing their "meaning", all because some same-sex partners being allowed to marry, then you didn't have much of a marriage to begin with.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192957
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
By claiming the husband or the wife is expendable? There's only two sexes. Marriage is already inclusive, both sexes are included.
<quoted text>
Well as long as Big D's marriage is not "re-define"d it must be okay. Let's not stop there. Bring 'em all in.
Yeah, Pietro... I think you're finally seeing the light.

Will your own marriage be impacted by gays getting married? Please make us a list of all the ways it will change.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192958
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
By claiming the husband or the wife is expendable? There's only two sexes. Marriage is already inclusive, both sexes are included.
<quoted text>
Well as long as Big D's marriage is not "re-define"d it must be okay. Let's not stop there. Bring 'em all in.
No I am not expendable in my marriage, my wife is not expendable in our marriage, as a non-religious person I may be unfamiliar with your terms of people as ďexpendableĒ in a marrage.

What I am saying is I am married, and my wife and I have not had to redefine our marriage in any way at all because same sex couples could marry, furthermore the court cases have been lost twice now by the supporters of Prop 8 and one of the many reasons for the loss is because they could not find a single married couple whose marriage was harmed by same sex couples being able to marry

Not one

Why donít you tell us.... in what way was your marriage harmed by same sex couples being able to marry?
Hypocrite Watch

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192959
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Your post has to rank in the top ten most retarded posts that has ever been written on all of topix
So much for Tolerance and Diversity, right, Brucie?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192960
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys want to keep marriage an exclusive action; a club for opposite gender people only.
Actually a club for men and women, as husband and wives. You are not barred from the club. The membership is very simple.
That is the very definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
How so? Does any state require a statement or orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license?
If you and others are so afraid of your particular marriages losing their "meaning", all because some same-sex partners being allowed to marry, then you didn't have much of a marriage to begin with.
The point is not our "particular marriages", but marriage as a whole, a matter of public policy, a shared understanding of its purpose and function. By your reasoning, there'd be no reason to bar any consenting adult relationship. In which case what is the point, why license it at all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192961
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am not expendable in my marriage, my wife is not expendable in our marriage, as a non-religious person I may be unfamiliar with your terms of people as ďexpendableĒ in a marrage.
Exactly, both the wife AND husband are needed in the marriage.
What I am saying is I am married, and my wife and I have not had to redefine our marriage in any way at all because same sex couples could marry, furthermore the court cases have been lost twice now by the supporters of Prop 8 and one of the many reasons for the loss is because they could not find a single married couple whose marriage was harmed by same sex couples being able to marry
The voters, twice, voted, for,this:

The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

Obviously the voters were concerned by attempts to redefine the legal meaning of marriage. If your argument is what harm will come of allowing same sex intimate personal sexual relationships to be designated marriage, then by that same reasoning, polygamy should also be allowed. If the sole argument is what harm will it cause individual marriages, then there is no reason to bar polygamy, or even siblings from marrying.
Why donít you tell us.... in what way was your marriage harmed by same sex couples being able to marry?
Why not tell me what benefit did my marriage, or your marriage, or any other marriage, enjoy, by allowing SSM? Did it strengthen our collective commitment to marriage, the conjugal, husband and wife version? Di it foster the belief that men and women, and the products of their union, children, are important, and government recognizes this by privileging the union of man and woman as husband and wife? Or does it promote the idea at marriage is simply a way a person's personal intimate adult relationship is granted a governemnt's benefits package?

Please tell us Big D, where is the line drawn if at all? Why bother licensing marriage at all?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 168,441 - 168,460 of200,323
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••