Federal judge rules against Hawaii gay marriage

Aug 8, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WFAA-TV Dallas

A federal judge has ruled against two Hawaii women who want to get married instead of enter into a civil union.

Comments
1 - 20 of 971 Comments Last updated Sep 16, 2012
First Prev
of 49
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Proof that the demise of DOMA will not automatically improve our lot and, in some ways worsens it.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Time for another Chick-Fil-A.
Augustinkee 8th 2030

Fishers, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

www.dallas.com/tv ;) Obama was gayee B4 marryAge;-0
Augustinkee 11th 2030

Fishers, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Eighthman wrote:
Time for another Chick-Fil-A.
8boy! it"s closer to Nov! n getting better?! just like NFL 2min time-out!!!;-000000000h, hope yee spirit LOL;)
Augustinkee 11th 2030

Fishers, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Eighthman wrote:
Time for another Chick-Fil-A.
8boys! remember IRIA editor, if U Obamake Dr. Bill_mr! mad he wil drop out of Topix Class and U onlee thinking with the Robot and Mobot with more robot clone....hope U learn how to Love Dr. Bill_mr! asssshe humanizey ok;-00000h, U c sis/co-system commercial the robot n fix Robottom...learn how to Love with Dr. Bill or B42Late;-0000000
Augustinkee 11th 2030

Fishers, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 8, 2012
 
kis! move on for tooooooooooooooooomorrow joke;)

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

It's an interesting ruling and one that will be appealed........so, the fight continues.
Jumper

Owensboro, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

That must be a moka moka pokey pokey!
david traversa

Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

The minute a judge sides with "christians", and not the Constitution, trouble starts.. Religion is too abstract and debatable (not to say false) a notion to have any business in a court of law.. This was pointed out by America's Founding Fathers; a fact which this judge has probably not the faintest knowledge of.. Ignorance raises its ugly head again.. But all considered, a small set-back as opposed to so many triumphs..
david traversa

Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Eighthman wrote:
Time for another Chick-Fil-A.
Only if you have a yet healthy digestion, no ulcers and are deaf..
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

5

4

4

Donate2NOM wrote:
<quoted text>Are you suggesting that each state should be allowed under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution to decide their own marriage and family laws by the citizens of the several States?
If you are, then we're in agreement.
Such a view is entirely what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our Republic, under the rubric of Federalism and the lengthy arguments eventually resulting in the ratification of our United States Constitution.
This country is too big to have the stupid wasteful failure federal government impose its will on all the states and all the citizens.
The Founders put the 10th Amendment in the Constitution for a reason.
So you can vote with your feet and get away from the liberals and queers that want to talk dirty to your little kids in Kindergarten about "gay sex" every day and move to a state with more normal people.
Liberals are free to stay and have the queers mack on their kids in the government schools liberals love to pay for.
The Founders never intended for Washington DC to dictate their values to the citizens of every state in this huge country.
It won't work because it violates the social contract the Founders set up to resolve issues like this.
If Homocrats in Washington mean to impose homofascism by force and coercion, they will fail miserably.
We don't live in a free country any longer, but most of us still believe, however incorrectly, that we're still a free people.
Perhaps they oppose you and don't take you seriously because every time you talk about children in this post, you sound like a serial killer or a rapist.

What do you expect them to do?... serve you tea and say, "What wonderful views"?

“Child of the Universe”

Since: Aug 09

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Donate2NOM wrote:
<quoted text>Are you suggesting that each state should be allowed under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution to decide their own marriage and family laws by the citizens of the several States?
If you are, then we're in agreement.
Such a view is entirely what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our Republic, under the rubric of Federalism and the lengthy arguments eventually resulting in the ratification of our United States Constitution.
This country is too big to have the stupid wasteful failure federal government impose its will on all the states and all the citizens.
The Founders put the 10th Amendment in the Constitution for a reason.
So you can vote with your feet and get away from the liberals and queers that want to talk dirty to your little kids in Kindergarten about "gay sex" every day and move to a state with more normal people.
Liberals are free to stay and have the queers mack on their kids in the government schools liberals love to pay for.
The Founders never intended for Washington DC to dictate their values to the citizens of every state in this huge country.
It won't work because it violates the social contract the Founders set up to resolve issues like this.
If Homocrats in Washington mean to impose homofascism by force and coercion, they will fail miserably.
We don't live in a free country any longer, but most of us still believe, however incorrectly, that we're still a free people.
It astounds many that you put so much faith in the vision of your "founders", who themselves were limited by the information available to them in the 18th Century.

How can you call yourself a patriotic person if you negate your federal government? Isn't that treason? What's the point of being a federation if uniform national standards can't be observed, and indeed are constantly thwarted by some bastardized concept that calls itself "freedom" but is in reality fascism and division?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

david traversa wrote:
The minute a judge sides with "christians", and not the Constitution, trouble starts.. Religion is too abstract and debatable (not to say false) a notion to have any business in a court of law.. This was pointed out by America's Founding Fathers; a fact which this judge has probably not the faintest knowledge of.. Ignorance raises its ugly head again.. But all considered, a small set-back as opposed to so many triumphs..
Yeah, my thinking as well: The judge has it exactly backwards. In fact, he says (quoting article)

If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment," and not through the courts.

^ This, from the article, summarizes precisely what should *not* be happening (the part about the people). The people should *not* be voting on this issue when they are voting based on lies; look at what it's led to so far: over thirty states banning the rights of a minority.

Failure to present the facts is leading to this anti-American travesty.

It's funny to me that the judge chose the most ILLOGICAL way of pretending he'd meted out justice. He is more incorrect for the reason(s) he stated than for any other(s) he could have come up with.
david traversa

Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Donate2NOM wrote:
<quoted text>Are you suggesting that each state should be allowed under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution to decide their own marriage and family laws by the citizens of the several States?
If you are, then we're in agreement.
Such a view is entirely what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our Republic, under the rubric of Federalism and the lengthy arguments eventually resulting in the ratification of our United States Constitution.
This country is too big to have the stupid wasteful failure federal government impose its will on all the states and all the citizens.
The Founders put the 10th Amendment in the Constitution for a reason.
So you can vote with your feet and get away from the liberals and queers that want to talk dirty to your little kids in Kindergarten about "gay sex" every day and move to a state with more normal people.
Liberals are free to stay and have the queers mack on their kids in the government schools liberals love to pay for.
The Founders never intended for Washington DC to dictate their values to the citizens of every state in this huge country.
It won't work because it violates the social contract the Founders set up to resolve issues like this.
If Homocrats in Washington mean to impose homofascism by force and coercion, they will fail miserably.
We don't live in a free country any longer, but most of us still believe, however incorrectly, that we're still a free people.
If you hadn't stooped to name-calling you could have, perhaps, been taken seriously by the more impressionable..- 1. You don't need "queers" for little children to hear dirty words.. their parents, neighbors and school-mates will take care of that..- 2. "Free" to practice the old, accustomed oppression, you obviously mean..
Donate2NOM

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps they oppose you and don't take you seriously because every time you talk about children in this post, you sound like a serial killer or a rapist.
What do you expect them to do?... serve you tea and say, "What wonderful views"?
You took me seriously enough to respond.
Thanks for the response and not taking up all your abnormal band-width.
Have you ever heard that 'brevity is the soul of wit'?
Work on it.
Cat74

Westmont, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

What if everyone had to have a civil union ceremony. Everyone. Then if you choose to you can have a church ceremony. It would be equal for everyone, and if you belonged to a church you could have a church ceremony. That should stop all the crying, and moaning, and feeling sorry for themselves.
Donate2NOM

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Leftatalbuquerque wrote:
<quoted text>
It astounds many that you put so much faith in the vision of your "founders", who themselves were limited by the information available to them in the 18th Century.
How can you call yourself a patriotic person if you negate your federal government? Isn't that treason? What's the point of being a federation if uniform national standards can't be observed, and indeed are constantly thwarted by some bastardized concept that calls itself "freedom" but is in reality fascism and division?
You're a Canadian.
You don't have any free-speech rights whatsoever.
Are you familiar with the Charter?
I am.
You're only saying what you say because they are government-approved views that you have to agree with, or else jail.
That's what queers want for America.
Jail and fascism and totalitarianism.
You have zero credibility because if you dissent from promoting homosexuality to children, you could lose all your property and go to prison for the rest of your life.
You don't have any real choice but to say the things that you say, or else, because you don't live in a free country.
Your government fears the free expression from its subjects/taxpayers/slaves.
Queers just hope America also quashes freedom of speech, for obvious reasons.
Jumper

Owensboro, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ha! ha!

I warned you guys years ago about those Cunooks, but nooooo nobody listened to Jumper.
Donate2NOM

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Cat74 wrote:
What if everyone had to have a civil union ceremony. Everyone. Then if you choose to you can have a church ceremony. It would be equal for everyone, and if you belonged to a church you could have a church ceremony. That should stop all the crying, and moaning, and feeling sorry for themselves.
No.
The definition of marriage means the joining of 1 man and 1 woman.
Period.
Anything else means erasing the definition of marriage.
That's why the attempts of homosexuals/Democrats has failed every time when it's been put to the people to vote on erasing the definition of marriage, 1 man + 1 woman.
Even most Democrats will vote for queers, but not counterfeit "marriage".
Other societies take a different approach like Canada, and take away all your property and throw you in jail for dissenting from the government-enforced view.
The homosexuals in America desperately want to set up a similar system here in America where they get to use the government punish and jail anyone who might disagree with them on any point, no matter how slight.
Homosexuals absolutely despise all human freedom now that they control the media and most governments.
Homosexuals just want to throw people in prison, because they can.
Donate2NOM

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Aug 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jumper wrote:
Ha! ha!
I warned you guys years ago about those Cunooks, but nooooo nobody listened to Jumper.
I was listening.
If anyone thinks Canada is a "free country", think again.
The government has freedom to act against you at their discretion and bankrupt you, then throw you in prison if you say things that Leftists won't tolerate.
Is that a free country?
It sounds like an ideological precursor that Leftists everywhere are building to stamp out freedom of speech once and for all and establish their iron grip of intolerant fascist tyranny.
Everybody already knows what these people are all about unless they're stupid and vote Democrat/Homocrat/Government.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 49
Next Last

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.

•••