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
128,741 - 128,760 of 200,591 Comments Last updated 25 min ago
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#144910 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And then what? We'll have to constitute marriage between man & dog as "equal marriage"?....ROFL
And then what... we'll have to deny voting rights to stupid people like you?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#144911 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you mean YOUR agenda. If I'm correct, wasn't it your gay community that propose the idea of gay porn in the classroom lol? The Gay Manifestios are the ones supporting the idea of showing children gay porn in the classroom, not us normal folks. Seems to me the Gay Nazi Party wants our kids exposed to what gays do in the bedroom...LOL.
I take it NAMBLA must be getting desperate to fulfill their evil sexual urges....ROFL
Nobody is proposing gay porn in the classroom, dipshit. Were you deprived of oxygen at birth? fetal alcohol syndrome?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#144912 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL "with no factual basis"? Oh PLuueeeezzz. I don't support gay marriage for the same reason I don't support bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, & god forbidden furries! They are perversions & nothing else. They don't accomplish anything! The way I see it, if you're going to call gay marriage "equal", then you might was well call those who marry kids, animals, objects, & even themselves as "equal" to. It's a slippery slope, many of which I see many sexual deviants here support!
It is a FACT gays cannot reproduce, because it takes a man & a woman to procreate. This is a FACTUAL BASIS of biology!
It is also a FACT that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage. Is everyone in your town retarded or just you?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#144913 Jun 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also a FACT that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage. Is everyone in your town retarded or just you?
It is also a FACT that marriage is between a man and a woman only. You want to change the facts to suit you and we just wont let you. Keep puching and we will keep pushing back even harder. WE are winning, not you.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#144914 Jun 8, 2012
The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>Not so fast Lucy, Dan admits that at one time he was a Homophobe, just like you. The difference is Dan evolved, changed, whilst you are stuck in the bronze age. Dan now understands that gay people are no different, they just want to be accepted for who they are. Oh they would also very much like to be married. Seee Ya Lucy
The difference is that I'm not Homophobic. I'm just not in favor of gay marriage. I have several long time friends that are gay, what people do in their private life is their business. So you got your information messed up again Jack.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#144915 Jun 8, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>
Well spoken Sedgewick.
You should have driven 30 minutes south to Elk Grove to get that EG stamp to make it look more authentic.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#144916 Jun 8, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, it's always someone else......you've NEVER done anything wrong, right?
Yes it's wrong to do the same thing dan does, but after a time, it's hard to resist. The point is dan can't argue and always makes threats, you just saw his threat yesterday to have me meet him at a local Home Depot. When he writes.."LOL" he actually seems very angry. I am not the only one that has been threatened and insulted by him. He started it.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#144917 Jun 8, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>The difference is that I'm not Homophobic. I'm just not in favor of gay marriage. I have several long time friends that are gay, what people do in their private life is their business. So you got your information messed up again Jack.
That describes me too. I have great gay friends, both male and female. But I am against gay marriage, and they understand that even if they dont agree. Gays who resent my stance and done know me will assume I am a homophobic Christian citing some fantasmogorical Bible scripture. I am not religious at all, not homophobic, and against gay marriage.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144918 Jun 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody is proposing gay porn in the classroom, dipshit. Were you deprived of oxygen at birth? fetal alcohol syndrome?
^Says the lesbian who recruits kids of her own LMAO
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144919 Jun 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also a FACT that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage. Is everyone in your town retarded or just you?
Then what are straight married couples doing? Giving birth to biological children of their own? Plueeeeez. The whole purpose of marriage is stay committed & REPRODUCE. So spare me the heterophobic insolence

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144920 Jun 8, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
Well excuse my rudeness but it was rude of you to equate polygamists with forced child brides etc.
Not rude, just part of the reality. When you look at the cases which have challenged state laws against polygamy as a violation of rights guaranteed under the US Constitution over the last 20 years or so, you'll find that they are all cases which involve child brides and/or forced marriages. It's men behaving very badly, who have been at the forefront, waving the banner of the right to polygamy, get used to it. Although you may finally get a respectable case out of that TV family, unless he's married sisters or something that automatically sets off the creepy meter. You'll also find that these cases all come out of Utah, which not only does not allow official polygamous marriages, it criminalizes the unofficial ones to boot, something almost all other states don't.

There is one reason and one reason only that there will never be a constitutionally recognized right to poly relationships as legal marriage under the US Constitution and it has nothing to do with creepy marriages, hatred of Mormons, Muslims or anyone else who wants such a relationship, the compelling state interest of the state actually being able to regulate marriage and the reality that any limit beyond one marriage per person at a time would be indefensibly arbitrary. Two spouses? Once you answer the question of whether your second wife counts against your first wife's total and vice versa, or if they can have a second spouse too and what, if any, are the rights, protections, benefits, responsibilities and obligations of the parties to these marriages are to be, you get asked the question of why the hell are you discriminating against those of us who want 3, 4, 5, 6...??? If you want a poly relationship, the state shouldn't prohibit it. Issues of underage "brides" and/or "grooms", forced relationships, fraud, etc, aren't problems inherent to poly but to some people who do it and shouldn't be overlooked. But if you want the states to regulate that Gordian knot for you, because you have that "right", forget about it, you're going to have to work that one out for yourselves.
Blake

Lacon, IL

#144921 Jun 8, 2012
Hick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Not rude, just part of the reality. When you look at the cases which have challenged state laws against polygamy as a violation of rights guaranteed under the US Constitution over the last 20 years or so, you'll find that they are all cases which involve child brides and/or forced marriages.
Hick, you really need to go back for that GED.

Supreme Court rulings enforcing the national definition of marriage as solely between man and wife in fact had nothing to do with child brides or forced marriages.

Plural marriage was very common throughout the Americas before your white trash ancestors got here. The same was true in Asia and Africa and even pre-Christian Europe.

“Mona-Little ”

Since: Jun 12

Gardena California

#144923 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what are straight married couples doing? Giving birth to biological children of their own? Plueeeeez. The whole purpose of marriage is stay committed & REPRODUCE. So spare me the heterophobic insolence
You got it all wrong.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144925 Jun 8, 2012
Mona-Little wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it all wrong.
No, YOU got it all wrong. You goddamn gay hypocrite

“Mona-Little ”

Since: Jun 12

Gardena California

#144926 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU got it all wrong. You goddamn gay hypocrite
I may be Gay, but I sure as hell am not a hypocrite. Do you know what a hypocrite is? Well, let me tell you, it's someone just like you. Someone who pretends to be a Christian, goes to church and pretends to serve the Lord, then outside of church they insult, curse and judge other people. You better go look at yourself in the mirror, stupid homophobia creep!
ARGUING with IDIOTS

United States

#144927 Jun 8, 2012
Mona-Little wrote:
<quoted text>I may be Gay, but I sure as hell am not a hypocrite. Do you know what a hypocrite is? Well, let me tell you, it's someone just like you. Someone who pretends to be a Christian, goes to church and pretends to serve the Lord, then outside of church they insult, curse and judge other people. You better go look at yourself in the mirror, stupid homophobia creep!
Who claims Christians don't sin?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144928 Jun 8, 2012
Blake wrote:
Hick, you really need to go back for that GED.
You prove that you would have failed the reading comprehension portion that test and yet it is I who should get a GED. Interesting. Maybe I'll try and fit one in after that PhD I've been thinking about now that I don't have a business to bother with.
Blake wrote:
Supreme Court rulings enforcing the national definition of marriage as solely between man and wife in fact had nothing to do with child brides or forced marriages.
Pay attention dear, the cases which have dealt with the issue of Utah's polygamy law, over the last 20 odd years, have involved men for whom being charged with polygamy was the LEAST of their legal problems, but the issue that would make most of the others go away if the law against it were overturned. Their other legal problems involved at least one underage "bride" and a "forced" marriage or two among others.
Blake wrote:
Plural marriage was very common throughout the Americas before your white trash ancestors got here. The same was true in Asia and Africa and even pre-Christian Europe.
Yes dear, we're all aware that poly relationships have been around as long, if not longer than mono relationships, but since in most parts of the world, mono relationships predominate, poly relationships, much like same sex relationships, have been in and out of favor with the "majority". Was there a point to telling us something we already knew, other than it being another opportunity for another childish insult?
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144931 Jun 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>And then what... we'll have to deny voting rights to stupid people like you?
You mean deny rights that are NATURAL & JUST, like heterosexuality?

Cool Story Bro.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144932 Jun 8, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well excuse my rudeness but it was rude of you to equate polygamists with forced child brides etc.
frank, i never made mention of forced child brides.

i did, however, mention polygamists have been known to have child brides.

child+brides+polygamy

http://gosw.about.com/od/southwesthistory/a/p...

http://helpthechildbrides.com/

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/30/on-polygam...

there are several more articles available on the subject.

please in the future do not purposely misconstrue what i state because it starts looking like a lie.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144933 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow no sense of humour bro
i don't think beastiality is funny nor do i understand the connection to this topic. i also do not have and uncle and i am a woman.

please apply yourself to either the discussion at hand or make relevant sense if you choose to converse with me. i would appreciate it.

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.

Brooks Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 17 min Bay Breeze 5,006
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 8 hr lazy posts 15,963
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Thu Tank ever 7,926
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Aug 6 starbucks 2,262
Casino expansion is flawed (Sep '10) Jul '14 Chief 3
Colton city manager investigation delays budget Jul '14 FosterFreeze 1
Restitution award to county for illegal cockfig... Jun '14 hsus and rico set... 9
•••
•••
Brooks Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Brooks Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Brooks People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Brooks News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••