Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201888 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#189073 Apr 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Our problem is, that we keep responding to him.
Probably a mistake on our part
I may disagree with others, but at least they are honest about it
That's not your only problem. Your new sidekick Jizzy's another one. He's a real peach! Good luck. Be honest!(yeah right).
Big D

Modesto, CA

#189075 Apr 17, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>True, how true.
In truth I understand the deeply religious stance opposed to same sex marriage, I agree that churches that are opposed to same sex marriages should not ever be forced to preform them.

They are free to have their rules for their churches, but those rules do not apply to people not of their church.

My only objection to them is their trying to enforce their rules on people that aren’t of their particular belief. That is religious tynary and I won’t stand for that, not in this country.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#189077 Apr 17, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think that any legal standing could be made to force a church to preform same sex marriages. There are a number of them that do and are willing to.
As for laws, they are not based upon religious principles. This nation will not stand for it. You cant force religious doctrine upon others. When you have a nation, like the USA, there are far to many religions to be considered. What may appeal to Christians may or may not to Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims. None of them appeal to atheists. I don't see SCOTUS, enforcing Prop 8 based upon religious morality.
Or course, I know many churches that want to preform them and others that will not. I don’t have a problem with that.

They can decide never to marry someone with blue eyes and I won’t complain, it is their little club, they can make all the rules they want to and apply them to their little flock. As long as people are only voluntarily in that flock... no problem.

I don’t see that either, with DOMA I expect article 3 to be tossed, It is possible they will overturn all of DOMA, but that will have national consequences like states forced to recognize marriages performed in other states. I think that is the right decision, but I don’t expect the supreme court to do that... not yet, that will happen, but not until a large majority of states recognize same sex marriage. That is coming but will take a while.

With Prop 8 I am not sure what to expect

1 Support the appellate court = prop 8 overturned
2 Decide the opponents have no standing = prop 8 overturned
3 Don’t rule and toss it back to the state = prop 8 over turned
4 Support the opposition and Prop 8 stands until the next election cycle when it will be back on the ballot and overturned.

But the bottom line is, prop 8 is doomed, either this year... or in the very near future.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189078 Apr 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>one that uses a rational reason for not having SSm legal in the US. you have not put up even one of those yet.
why?
You ignore the most basic and rational of all. Nature has shown us that men were designed to be with women, and vice versa. Without one of each, the species would not survive. Marriage is a ritualistic ceremony to validate the coupling of 1 man and 1 woman. Period.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#189079 Apr 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Or course, I know many churches that want to preform them and others that will not. I don’t have a problem with that.
They can decide never to marry someone with blue eyes and I won’t complain, it is their little club, they can make all the rules they want to and apply them to their little flock. As long as people are only voluntarily in that flock... no problem.
I don’t see that either, with DOMA I expect article 3 to be tossed, It is possible they will overturn all of DOMA, but that will have national consequences like states forced to recognize marriages performed in other states. I think that is the right decision, but I don’t expect the supreme court to do that... not yet, that will happen, but not until a large majority of states recognize same sex marriage. That is coming but will take a while.
With Prop 8 I am not sure what to expect
1 Support the appellate court = prop 8 overturned
2 Decide the opponents have no standing = prop 8 overturned
3 Don’t rule and toss it back to the state = prop 8 over turned
4 Support the opposition and Prop 8 stands until the next election cycle when it will be back on the ballot and overturned.
But the bottom line is, prop 8 is doomed, either this year... or in the very near future.
Waitaminit here! I thought the justices consulted with the mighty Big D, the stealth tenth justice, on a daily basis?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189080 Apr 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it would show that it is not a logical conclusion that legalizing SSm would mean we have to legalize polygamous marriage.
logic is fun!
How can you call THAT logic? The logical implication of SSM means marriage restrictions are wrong. That means the bottom line is that no kind of restriction is valid, at all. Period. Any marriage can be legal, OR none but the prescribed 1 man/1woman type. THAT'S logic. Leave the thinking to the properly equipped adults. You promote arbitrary decision making, on who may bend the rules. This is ILLOGICAL.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189081 Apr 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>heterosexual marraige is in now way essential to social stability, as proven by the countries that have had it for a while and now have a higher standard of living, healthier, happier citizens and better educated kids.
facts are fun!!
your argument was proven wrong before you were told to parrot it...so sad.
Again, those aren't facts, they are "factoids", manufactured for your benefit. No society, that has disrupted the natural order of things, endures.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189082 Apr 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we all know the slippery slope arguments against same sex marriage, we have heard them for years.
but some of us are less afraid of that slippery slope than you are. Because the word "marriage" does not belong to a belief system. We will take the issues, one at a time.
This ones time has come, same sex marriage.
And you, who repeatedly mistakes the term "slippery slope" for "logical implication", are wrong again. If we bend the rules for one group, we must, in all fairness, bend them for all. Else, we become an arbitrary dispenser of rights. And, again, I state the your claims that most Americans support your game is nothing short of fraud, use of a "manufactured consensus". A prefabricated sham of a poll, using carefully pre-screened group, designed to achieve a predetermined result.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189083 Apr 17, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
I KNOW WHO THE BOSTON BOMBERS ARE... Ill bet they are connected to the army of god... ou know a christian hate group...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/eric ...
the bigots brother who oh so sadly can't get the money from the book about his brother is pissed ....
Yeah......keep huffing the glue, darlin', it's making you more coherent every day.....It's really helping. Let me clue you in....It's another governmental tool for inching us closer to martial law. You watch.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189084 Apr 17, 2013
REX 84. "Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was an alleged secretive "scenario and drill" developed by the United States federal government to suspend the United States Constitution, declare martial law, place military commanders in charge of state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens who are deemed to be "national security threats", in the event that the President declares a "State of National Emergency". The plan states, events causing such a declaration would be widespread U.S. opposition to a U.S. military invasion abroad, such as if the United States were to directly invade Central America. To combat what the government perceived as "subversive activities", the plan also authorized the military to direct ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels." Said camps being kept manned and in full readiness, for the illegals that are now receiving amnesty. The illegals that they will never house. They will be looking at us, inside and looking out. While they inherit our country.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189085 Apr 17, 2013
And...Agenda 21: "During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels.[citation needed] The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that "We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty." Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21. Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21, but Arizona rejected a similar bill.

Activists, some of whom have been associated with the Tea Party movement by the The New York Times and The Huffington Post, have said that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy by the United Nations to deprive individuals of property rights. Columnists in The Atlantic have linked opposition to Agenda 21 to the property rights movement in the United States. A poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn't have enough information to form an opinion. Glen Beck said it was a means of instituting "centralized control over all of human life on planet Earth", a notion which Media Matters dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189086 Apr 17, 2013
The Missouri House of Representatives on Monday passed a ban on the United Nations sustainability plan Agenda 21 after a spirited discussion of space aliens and how Walmart could avoid zoning laws to build more stores.

The Republican-controlled House voted 110-40 to ban local governments from adopting the Agenda 21, a broad outline of planning goals and sustainability targets. Agenda 21 was passed by the U.N. in 1992, but has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and does not contain the force of law in the U.S.
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/agen...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189087 Apr 17, 2013
"Agenda 21 For Dummies ".
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#189088 Apr 17, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
And you, who repeatedly mistakes the term "slippery slope" for "logical implication", are wrong again. If we bend the rules for one group, we must, in all fairness, bend them for all. Else, we become an arbitrary dispenser of rights. And, again, I state the your claims that most Americans support your game is nothing short of fraud, use of a "manufactured consensus". A prefabricated sham of a poll, using carefully pre-screened group, designed to achieve a predetermined result.
Big D thinks if he calls it the slippery slope, that makes it not valid and dismisses it without argument.

He's very surprised when someone calls bullsh!t on that. And then he gets angry when they won't accept his simple and casual dismissal.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189089 Apr 17, 2013
Google, or Wiki, "REX84" and "Agenda21". Yes, something has gone horribly wrong. And, for added emphasis, Google the new intiative "Our kids don't belong to us, anymore"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/arti...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189090 Apr 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Drat! I'm slipping! You jackasses are agreeing with me.
Yeah. And I hope that I'm wrong, for once, but I fear where we are headed. DHS buying up ammo, NOAA doing the same thing. Our National Weather Service? Bulletproof "Stop and Go" booths, suspension of Posse Comitatus, and the new authority for the Prez to single-handedly impose Martial Law, it is adding up fast, and badly, for us. National traumas, on a weekly basis. That is exactly the justification neede for the single-handed imposition of Martial Law. If I'm wrong, then call me a fool, but if I'm right.....
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189091 Apr 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How about there's no rational reason to have it. None, niente....zip...how did western civilization survive into the 21st century, on this quaint notion that marriage is a union of husband and wife? Radical...before ya know it someone will suggesy that human reproduction is sexual. What a concept....sex between men and women makes babies. Who knows maybe one of those babies will grow up and call himself "Woodtick57"........ .hmmmmmm.....sounds like a steak sauce for insects.....
Bravo! And ROFLMAO@ "Woodtick57" steak sauce for insects.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189092 Apr 17, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am afraid mother nature is opposed to your position, homosexuality is common among many mammals.
Or are you arguing that any marriage is against mother nature, that is a better argument I suppose there are some monogamous mammals, but not nearly as many.
Neither. Mother Nature simply tolerates your side, while refusing to reward it, with perpetuity. To use small words, she doesn't allow your kind to reproduce. She simply allows a few of you to appear. Now, if SSM types could reproduce.....I-yi-yi...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189093 Apr 17, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
let's highlight this from the above :
"In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage."
Olson's argument was not disputed.
Ahem..."Olson tried to set up a clear distinction " clearly implies that he FAILED to do so..."Olson TRIED to set up a clear distinction"...."TRI ED". It's right there, in black and white..."TRIED", "TRIED"...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#189094 Apr 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:

"Woodtick57"........ .hmmmmmm.....sounds like a steak sauce for insects....

Too funny!

Wonder what year the silly jackass was born? 1957? You think?

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.

Desert Hot Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
facetime? (gay guys only) (Jul '11) 5 hr Bottom 36
News Vagos motorcycle club targeted in Southern Cali... (Mar '06) Tue Ted 4,833
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Tue Creeps 20
Young couple have job offer in Rancho Mirage - Aug 21 gjstewart 1
Need a place to let my golden swim and play Jul 29 Anonymous 1
Yucca Valley Music Emporium (Oct '12) Jul 25 Musikologist 13
universal covenant ministries? (Sep '07) Jul '16 Yolanda perez 4

Desert Hot Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Desert Hot Springs Mortgages