Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201807 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.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#137279 Apr 22, 2012
naturalwonder wrote:
<quoted text>Where the hell are you at? I report those guys to the DNR office with their tag numbers and laugh when their trucks get towed away. They fine them and take their firearms too. BTW it's live's not life's.
Must be close to you.
By the way it's fined not fine. Lol

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

HATE AND BIGOTRY

#137280 Apr 22, 2012
naturalwonder wrote:
<quoted text>The woman are down at the bar getting picked up by better looking guys.
Would that be considered the "SHARE" factor? If they are looking for something better......that wouldn't surprise me......lol!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

HATE AND BIGOTRY

#137281 Apr 22, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
By proper womanly thing you mean cooking and cleaning up after their man?
Yes, by some who believe that is all a woman is good for......here's a good joke for you along those lines......remember the last one:
Three men from Texas were sitting together one day bragging about how they had given their new wives duties.

The first man had married a woman from Illinois and had told her that she was going to have to do the dishes and house cleaning. It took a couple of days, but on the third day he came home to see a clean house and dishes washed and put away.

The second man had married a woman from Michigan. He had given his wife orders that she was to do all the cleaning, dishes, and the cooking. The first day he didn't see any results, but the next day he saw it was better. By the third day, he saw his house was clean, the dishes were done, and there was a huge dinner on the table.

The third man had married a girl from Alaska. He told her that her duties were to keep the house cleaned, dishes washed, lawn mowed, laundry washed and hot meals on the table for every meal. He said the first day he didn't see anything, the second day he didn't see anything, but by the third day some of the swelling had gone down and he could see a little bit out of his left eye, enough to fix himself a sandwich and load the dishwasher..

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#137282 Apr 22, 2012
My iPhone changes words on me all the time. Not that I know my English all that well because I suffer from dyslexia but I think the iPhone changes words on me then goes and post on some iPhone sharing board what it just did to its owner so all the iPhones can laugh about it. They don't call them smart ( ass) phones for nothing.

“Pay the toll”

Since: Jan 10

or meet the troll

#137283 Apr 22, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Must be close to you.
By the way it's fined not fine. Lol
Fair enough...lol
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#137284 Apr 22, 2012
polly sigh one oh one wrote:
<quoted text>
Mkay.....
enjoy satans path
Satan?

hahahahahahaa
ahahhahahahaa
ahahahahahah

I stopped believing in the boogeyman when I was a child. If you're lucky, one day you MIGHT grow up.
Winston Smith

Lancaster, PA

#137285 Apr 22, 2012
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignore the inability to express homosexuality sexually in a non-harmful or healthy way.
By this I assume you mean physical expression. Holding hands, kissing, hugging, petting/manual stimulation, oral sex. What is harmful about any of these things?
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
You also ignore the clear and absolute declaration of evolution that it is a genetic defect.
You confuse your opinion with clear and absolute declarations. Sorry, but you fail on this simple point. The human race suffers naught due to homosexuality.
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to equate 4% of the population (glbt) with 96% of the population. That is not normal.
Equate? Let us see...
pulse, check,
normal compliment of appendages, check
paired eyes, check
paired gonads, check
They've got everything you and I have in terms of physical attributes and function. The only difference lies in sexual attration. It may not be normal for you or myself, but it is for them.
Would you call someone normal if they suffering from sickle cell anemia? Oddly enough that was a genetic adaptation to the presence of malaria. A genetic "defect" that saved lives at the right time. Evolution and normal, funny terms, eh?
Ki Marea wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just a start. Sorry Winston, you are smoking dope.
Sorry Ki, you must be stoned.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#137286 Apr 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, by some who believe that is all a woman is good for......here's a good joke for you along those lines......remember the last one:
Three men from Texas were sitting together one day bragging about how they had given their new wives duties.
The first man had married a woman from Illinois and had told her that she was going to have to do the dishes and house cleaning. It took a couple of days, but on the third day he came home to see a clean house and dishes washed and put away.
The second man had married a woman from Michigan. He had given his wife orders that she was to do all the cleaning, dishes, and the cooking. The first day he didn't see any results, but the next day he saw it was better. By the third day, he saw his house was clean, the dishes were done, and there was a huge dinner on the table.
The third man had married a girl from Alaska. He told her that her duties were to keep the house cleaned, dishes washed, lawn mowed, laundry washed and hot meals on the table for every meal. He said the first day he didn't see anything, the second day he didn't see anything, but by the third day some of the swelling had gone down and he could see a little bit out of his left eye, enough to fix himself a sandwich and load the dishwasher..
Good joke because it's very hateful and sexist to bash women but it's really funny to bash men.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

HATE AND BIGOTRY

#137287 Apr 22, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good joke because it's very hateful and sexist to bash women but it's really funny to bash men.
Really, exactly how did that joke bash men? What an idiot you are!!!
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#137288 Apr 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, exactly how did that joke bash men? What an idiot you are!!!
Sheeesh. I said it was a good joke. Can't you take a compliment?

Touchy! What is it that time of ...nevermind. YUK!YUK!YUK!
Fed-up

Malden, MA

#137289 Apr 22, 2012
Straights Only !

or we are all criminals
Fed-up

Malden, MA

#137290 Apr 22, 2012
Frank get a life
1 post removed
Are_you_Pissed_y et

Chico, CA

#137292 Apr 22, 2012
So let me get this straight. The people of California voted this down not only once but TWICE and then along comes some liberal, pillow biting "judge" and tells the people of California pretty much "Hey F U! I dont care about the voting." Anybody else see a problem with this? It could be worse though, We could have a Muslim, socialist illegal in the white house, oh wait a sec...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#137293 Apr 22, 2012
lides wrote:
Yes, Brian, you regularly have made just this argument. You may not phrase it as such, but you are absolutely arguing against equal protection of the laws.
Gays have equal protection to follow the same standards as everyone else. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution, that's why it's perfectly legal to not assign women to combat units or register them for the selective service like men are required to do.

The ERA failed because the states didn't want gender equality rights. Try again; we're going to nominate a candidate who has pledged to promote a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between man and woman.

.
lides wrote:
This is merely another rationalization. Not all same sex couples desire to have children. And following your rationalization, divorce and single parent adoption establish the same condition.
Even a sterile husband and wife can give an adopted child something no same sex couple can; a mom and dad.

“Pay the toll”

Since: Jan 10

or meet the troll

#137294 Apr 22, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Gays have equal protection to follow the same standards as everyone else. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution, that's why it's perfectly legal to not assign women to combat units or register them for the selective service like men are required to do.
The ERA failed because the states didn't want gender equality rights. Try again; we're going to nominate a candidate who has pledged to promote a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between man and woman.
.
<quoted text>Even a sterile husband and wife can give an adopted child something no same sex couple can; a mom and dad.
That candidate will lose. Climate change is real. Dummy
Are_you_Pissed_y et

Chico, CA

#137295 Apr 22, 2012
So let me get this straight. The people of California voted this down not only once but TWICE and then along comes some liberal, pillow biting "judge" and tells the people of California pretty much "Hey F U! I dont care about the voting." Anybody else see a problem with this? It could be worse though, We could have a Muslim, socialist illegal in the white house, oh wait a sec...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#137296 Apr 22, 2012
It will be worse!!

For some reason judge can intrepid things as they see fit. To judge according to the constitution you must use the definition of every word from that era not today's definitions.

It's like in the bible when it say he knew her. That to day means something total different then it meant back then.
Pothead

Vallejo, CA

#137297 Apr 22, 2012
naturalwonder wrote:
<quoted text>CH4 has substance, variable form, and shape is the same as form doc.
Thanks, you just described an individual that smells like rotten egg after sex and can't tell whether he's man or woman. Variable alright.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Baltimore, MD

#137298 Apr 22, 2012
Below I've listed the rule of recusal for judges. Apparently, Judge Walker kept his homosexuality a secret. Then, after deciding the case, he promptly retired.

In other words this judge is guilty of three ethical failings:

1. Not divulging his homosexuality to the senior judge.

2. Retiring so no action could be taken against him

3. trying the case knowing full well that had his homosexuality been known he wouldn't have been assigned the case.

Some have made the argument that a hetero judge would have a bias too, but hetero judges decide for gays at least 50% of time. Indeed, two of the appellant judges stayed Walker's decision.

In other words, the hetero judge argument is not borne out by fact. Unlike gay judges, hetero judges are impartial.

RECUSAL RULE:

To disqualify or remove oneself as a judge over a particular proceeding because of one's conflict of interest. Recusal, or the judge's act of disqualifying himself or herself from presiding over a proceeding, is based on the Maxim that judges are charged with a duty of impartiality in administering justice.

When a judge is assigned to a case, she reviews the general facts of the case and determines whether she has any conflict of interest concerning the case. If a conflict of interest exists, the judge may recuse herself on her own initiative. In addition, any party in a case may make a motion to require the judge to recuse herself from hearing the case. The initial presiding judge usually determines whether or not the apparent conflict requires her recusal, and the judge's decision is given considerable deference. Some jurisdictions, however, require another judge to decide whether or not the presiding judge should be disqualified. If a judge fails to recuse himself when a direct conflict of interest exists, the judge may later be reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined by the body that oversees Judicial Administration. In addition, in some cases where a judge presides over a matter in which he has a direct conflict of interest, any criminal conviction or civil damage award in the case may be reversed or set aside.

Generally, a judge must recuse himself if he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party to the lawsuit or has personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in the proceeding. The Code of Judicial Conduct, a judicial ethics code drafted by the American Bar Association in 1972 and adopted by most states and the federal government, outlines situations in which a judge should disqualify himself from presiding over a matter. Canon 3C of the Judicial Code outlines these situations, including the judge's personal bias or prejudice toward a matter or its participants, personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in a case, a professional or familial relationship with a party or an attorney, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Most interpretations of the code mandate a judge's disqualification or recusal if any of these factors are present.
Gay Pride

Vallejo, CA

#137299 Apr 22, 2012
What a sheer coincidence, Judge Walker was going to retire and not very many gay judges that can take his place. We all know of course that even they cannot produce their own offsprings, law or no law. So since he is due for extinction someone high up in the ladder of justice saw it fit to let him do the honors of screwing the entire state of California's democratic process.

Conflict of interest? No way! Although the judge has same sex relationship, he would never betray the public's trust by corrupting the justice system with his personal bias towards the gay community! Unconstitutional yes, but purely based on legal grounds, nothing personal here!

Apparently the judge's husband/wife/whatever has an itch that wouldn't go away and has been bothering our hero every night, he/she has a headache and the only cure is a wedding ring!

Lo and behold, it worked! The now-retired federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 said at a recent meeting in San Francisco that he thinks same-sex marriage is “an idea whose time has come.”

Of course the time has come, Judge Walker is a gay judge who stands to benefit from his pronouncement that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. He wants to get married now!

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Chicago approves $5.5M package for police tortu... 3 min Lawrence Wolf 9
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min red and right 188,016
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Quirky 326,626
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Blitzking 162,167
News The right therapy for LGBT youth 5 min Cordwainer Trout 21
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min woodtick57 1,225,041
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min HILLARY 2016 180,543
News Ben Carson confirms presidential campaign 9 min red and right 120
News Meet the Candidate: Carly Fiorina 36 min Shayla 80
More from around the web