Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 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 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150870 Jul 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I read what you wrote, and you are the one foaming at the mouth. This happens most often when one realizes they have lost the debate, that's when they become louder and more asinine in their comments.
Then it seems you have realized you have lost the debate.
You can't counter my points, so you attack straw men, then call me names.
akpilot wrote:
You are the one who seems to think everything relates to slavery and black suppression in this country- newsflash Rose, it doesn't.
Yep, you know you have lost the debate.
ELH

United States

#150871 Jul 17, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
I don't mind saying I'm tickled pink...
Tickle pink? OMG you are such a queen!
ELH

United States

#150874 Jul 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>

" The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. "- Loving v Virginia
So according to you, the KEY WORD is "racial" not DISCRIMINATION.


And it goes without saying that there is no way that that racial discrimination in the 1950's and homosexual discrimination now have any similarities what so ever...other than that they are BOTH discrimination.

And even though LOVING deals specifically with the right for what was a the time a non traditional couple to marry. there are no similarities there either.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150877 Jul 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm, let's take a look at the history of the writing of Article 2 Sec 2.
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later)- John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay)- The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts
http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt
Need more???
Nah, I've gotten a good laugh at your expense already.
akpilot wrote:
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."-- James Madison to George Washington 1787
Still not enough??
The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
"The reasoning in the letter of our late envoys to France is so fully supported by the writers on the law of nations, particularly by Vattel....." John Adams 1801 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php ...
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”- John Bingham 1866 ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)
"The law of nations requires every national government to use 'due diligence' to prevent a wrong being done within its own dominion to another nation with which it is at peace, or to the people thereof; and because of this, the obligation of one nation to punish those who, within its own jurisdiction, counterfeit the money of another nation has long been recognized. Vattel in his Law of Nations...." U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)
Need more proof Law Of Nations was refering to Vattel???
Ok-- "To evince the contrary let us recur to the writers on the laws of Nations on the subject.](Vattel, vol. i. p. 105. book 1. chap. 21. sec. 260." Continental Congress August 1786 ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)
Have you ever considered putting your posts in a pill as a cure for insomnia?
ELH

United States

#150878 Jul 17, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =0-WL-58v7DwXX
So, if after seeing this, you believe what Mass Resistance says, you are desperately homophobic (inclusive) or stupid beyond belief.
Homophobic, stupid beyond belief AND miserably unhappy. His existence is a strong case for requiring a license to breed thank God that his genetic line will end with him.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#150879 Jul 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Yes it was, and here it is again:
" The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. "- Loving v Virginia
You didn't like it because it didn't go along with your fantasy.
"The clear and central purpose" is not the same as saying the SOLE purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to... I'm sure you are ignoring that important bit of difference, we're not. Even in 1967 the guarantee of equal protection had already been expanded beyond only questions of race. Not only does that statement not prove that same sex couples are not entitled to the guarantees of the 14th Amendment, it goes a long way towards proving they are.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150880 Jul 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
They are equal, everyone across the board- Heterosexual, Homosexual, White, Black, Asian, Polygamist, Italian, Cuban, Mexican........ Can all marry one person of the opposite sex, and not one of them can marry someone of the same sex. All are created equal.
The court has also affirmed this- Hernandez v Robles
But I guess that court was packed with a bunch of homophobic idiots because they didn't agree with you.
Can a man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a woman marry a woman? No.
Yes != No.
ELH

United States

#150881 Jul 17, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, I've gotten a good laugh at your expense already.
should someone tell AKP that there are plenty of sites that would welcome his cut and paste his off topic retoric or at least let him know that the first seven US PRESIDENTS where NOT US citizens?
ELH

United States

#150882 Jul 17, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
"The clear and central purpose" is not the same as saying the SOLE purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to... I'm sure you are ignoring that important bit of difference, we're not.
But we are all idiots and only AKP KNOWS what the "founding fathers" REALLY intended.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Even in 1967 the guarantee of equal protection had already been expanded beyond only questions of race. Not only does that statement not prove that same sex couples are not entitled to the guarantees of the 14th Amendment, it goes a long way towards proving they are.
But that's just because the high court judges are a bunch of hacks who don't know WTF they are doing.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150884 Jul 17, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Gender segregation marriage would divide the electorate by sexual orientation; that's not good.
Are you against gender segregated rest rooms? Locker rooms and showers?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#150886 Jul 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You said it, not me. You were the one bemoaning the founders and the Constitution.
Stating the FACT that the founders have been dead for over 200 years is HARDLY the same thing as hating my country. Give it a rest, drama queen.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150887 Jul 17, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Earlier one of you chaps wanted to know what possible harm could come of same-sex marriage. I pointed to the full frontal assault on children in Massachusetts.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

What went on in Penn State, the Catholic Church, and with Larry Whats-it had nothing at all to do with gay marriage.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#150889 Jul 17, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Even simpler answer, moron.
"P.U.M.P.(Peers Using More Prevention), is a non-judgmental, fun group of harm reduction educators and HIV counselors working on issues of sexual health with gay, bisexual and transgender men's communities."
Rentboy (as well as the other companies linked on the page) do business with a segment of those communities, a segment probably in the most need of harm reduction and sexual health information.
Through this cooperation, patrons of these sites are provided with desperately needed safer sex information and links to groups like P.U.M.P. and their parent, the C.A.A., which can provide additional help if desired, in turn, these groups get financial assistance for this and other programs. Not only is it appropriate moron, it's potentially lifesaving.
And there you have it, Sport's fans.

He can't deny Massachusetts's gay-run non-profits carry man-boy ads on their websites so he presents the line of bull directly above to justify the human sex trafficking this insane practice promotes.

Slimy? You bet it is -- but the irony is, straight morons who support same marriage buy double-talk like Rick's hook, line, and sinker:

"They link to man-boy sex trafficking sites because they want to get the patrons who use rentaboy the help they need."

Keep in mind Rick is talking about an ad for rentaboy that includes a link chock full of half-nude boys for rent -- not a telephone number where the boys (or patrons) can call to get counseling and treatment.

You see, Rick, it's the LINK to rentably we don't get.

Do you mean, after clicking on the link, landing on the site, picking one of the naked boys and catching HIV, the "patron" can hit the back button, return to the CCA site, and sign up for the meds he now needs?

Walk us through your whacky LGBT logic, Rick.

And don't forget to explain why a link to rentaboy is necessary.

Thanks, pal.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#150890 Jul 17, 2012
ELH wrote:
But we are all idiots and only AKP KNOWS what the "founding fathers" REALLY intended.

But that's just because the high court judges are a bunch of hacks who don't know WTF they are doing.
Of course, but I had to take a shot anyways.
Reality

Madison, WI

#150892 Jul 17, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
The troubling thing here is the swill directly above is what these fellows are teaching kids in our schools: anyone not for same-sex marriage is a self-loathing psychotic.
The call this kind of instruction "tolerance."
In other words, what they're teaching out kids is family values, Christianity, heterosexuality, the missionary position, are all signs of anti-social behavior -- if you don't embrace homosexuality, bisexuality, Transgenderism you're a misfit at odds with the rest of the human race.
Go figure ...
You are not a misfit, don't let society label you like that. You are a proud BISEXUAL, stand up for your self.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#150894 Jul 17, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If you say so dear.
You jackass, I was responding to Rose, not you.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#150895 Jul 17, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>MassResistance is an anti-gay hate group dear, you and they are merely in denial of that reality, it's their sine qua non. Everything they put out must be seen through that lens.
Classic LGBT rebuttal: " fill in the name) is a hate group. Everything they say must be seen through that lens."

Evidence ...?
So, I guess you are letting the whole P.U.M.P./Rentboy thing die quietly. Wise move. You're right, it's absolutely shocking that adults would attend a public event put on by the youth of their community. They could be family and friends of the kids, but you and your dirty minded friends can't help but wander off into homoerotic fantasies at every possible opportunity.
Here's the photo again, Rick.

Two of the men are drag queens, the others are in their 30s and 40s. They're holding a sign that reads "Farmingham High School Gay/Straight Alliance."

All that and your rebuttal is "They could be parents of the students"

Admit it, Rick, you're not even trying to give a rational rebuttal, you imbecile.
No Moew

Covina, CA

#150897 Jul 17, 2012
Just checking the Id's locker room.
ELH

United States

#150898 Jul 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
The problem is, people want to twist the Constitution into whatever suits them today, and that isn't the way things work. The Constitution isn't opinion based, and there is only one way to change its meaning- see Article V.
Tough shit for you that the high court seems to take a some what broader and more flexible view than you do otherwise marrying out of your own race would still be a crime- see REALITY.
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#150899 Jul 17, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
And it's no surprise you didn't go to work given you've never had a job.
Next.
Oh I have a job, I have the luxury of working when I want.

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.

Acton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I grew up in Sylmar (Oct '08) Mon mike 195
Looking for lost family. Jun 16 Kimberly K 3
Joseph DiPasquale / Handyman (Dec '12) Jun 16 Kimberly K 7
Keep a Word * Drop a Word (Jan '15) Jun 16 Kimberly K 649
Pit Bull Rescue Tia Torres husband ex-convict a... (Oct '07) May 23 Najalover 625
dispen-sary 24/7 A d d y s, T a r, H , etc May '18 Zagatan 1
President Trump Mar '18 Hmmmm leftys 4

Acton Jobs

Personal Finance

Acton Mortgages