Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 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: Nov 11

Location hidden

#150521 Jul 15, 2012
skg wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you understand you cant vote on unconstitutional issues. That is the whole point. Look into the issue.
Gay marriage is NOT a constitutional right, and neither is Marriage itself. It is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Please stop this gay tactic of misleading and misrepresenting your position. Thank you.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150522 Jul 15, 2012
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
Gay marriage is NOT a constitutional right, and neither is Marriage itself. It is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Please stop this gay tactic of misleading and misrepresenting your position. Thank you.
The 14th amendment says otherwise.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#150523 Jul 15, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Unable to come up with anything which might be confused with a rebuttal of my arguments, you go off on this awkward tangent about a suspected pedophile who happens to be gay. If he is guilty of what he has been accused of, he was able to fool many people, both gay and straight for years, but what does his alleged behavior have to say about the subject of what should and should not be touched in schools? Absolutely nothing.
Unable to come up with anything which might be confused with a rebuttal of my arguments,
Your "arguments"?

Don't be ridiculous, you broke down hack.

You merely parrot what the LGBT says.

In all the time you're been here, which has been considerable, you've never once presented an idea that was yours -- never offered an original opinion, never disagreed with a syllable from the LGBT -- so don't dignify the crap you swill with the words "my arguments."

No...?

Okay, present one argument you haven't lifted from the LGBT playbook word for word.

Just one.

I won't hold my breath.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150525 Jul 15, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is children should be taught anal sex is safe, normal and as wholesome as apple pie. Same-sex marriage is just the Trojan horse predators like you use to get pass the school gates.
Thirty years ago you defined "equality" as the right to do what you wanted in your bath houses; today, you define it as same-sex marriage; tomorrow, you'll define it as man-boy sex rights.]
Larry Brinkin was one of the most prominent LGBT activists in the country and he advocated all the things you do. Larry Brinkin is a pedophile.
If you had an once of integrity you'd admit he and his ideas are sick. Instead, you contort yourself into a pretzel trying to separate his homosexuality his pedophlia.
You tell us there can be no possible connection between his homosexuality and his lust for sex with infants -- absolutely none!-- that the two are separate and unconnected.
But you certainly don't know if this is the case. Furthermore, there's not a shred of science supporting the notion the two are unconnected -- yet you scream to the high heavens that Jerry Sandusky, Larry Brinkin, and Catholic priests should not be associated with gay males in any way, shape, or form and anyone who does is a homophobe.
In other words, you place the public image of gays over the welfare of children.
This is what you're doing, Madam, and it's despicable.
Rose's Law...
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#150526 Jul 15, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
Look who's calling the kettle black.
BooHoo now I'm a bigot because I chose not to be pushed to accept the homo lifestyle, BFD you are second class my friend get used to it ...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150527 Jul 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
People with medical conditions are allowed but others are not. So according to you the 14th Amendment prevents such discrimination.
<quoted text>
You can pursue all you like, doesn't mean you will always catch it. I would like to sit in a smoking section at a restaurant, unfortunately I cannot. Doesn't make it an 14th Amendment issue.
Whatever.
Gay marriage is a 14th Amendment issue. It's a simple matter of equal protection under the law. A man should be able to do the same thing a woman can do...marry a man. A woman should be able to do the same thing a man can...marry a woman.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#150528 Jul 15, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Children of same-sex couples are worse off
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-study-...
not true

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150529 Jul 15, 2012
Gay marriage will be the law of the land in California by October of this year.

Washington, Maryland, and Maine will all soon have marriage equality after the November election.

And in New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii there are law suits for gay marriage which will go to the courts.

DOMA is going to the Supreme Court.

By 2013 gay marriage might be legal in 13 US states and the federal government will also recognize gay marriage after DOMA is done.

You can't stop equality from happening. Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. It's inevitable.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#150530 Jul 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
No Rose, everything is not a Black issue.
You are just a hater who thinks he’s (or she’s) stumbled on a valid argument against equal rights for all Americans.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150531 Jul 15, 2012
Bruno wrote:
BooHoo now I'm a bigot because I chose not to be pushed to accept the homo lifestyle, BFD you are second class my friend get used to it ...
Not in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Washington D.C., Maryland, Washington, California, and soon the US federal government as well.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150532 Jul 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry you do not like the decision of the court:
" 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
That's very nice. But it was in the context of a case dealing with race.
The 14th Amendment has been used to counter gender based discrimination as well.(Reed v Reed)

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#150533 Jul 15, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Your "arguments"?
Don't be ridiculous, you broke down hack.
You merely parrot what the LGBT says.
In all the time you're been here, which has been considerable, you've never once presented an idea that was yours -- never offered an original opinion, never disagreed with a syllable from the LGBT -- so don't dignify the crap you swill with the words "my arguments."
No...?
Okay, present one argument you haven't lifted from the LGBT playbook word for word.
Just one.
I won't hold my breath.
And you are just a joke.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#150534 Jul 15, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose's Law...
She's finally found a way to stop making such a pathetic fool of herself.

Now she just responds with "Rose's Law" and the IQ of her posts quadruples.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150535 Jul 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
They are treated exactly the same, neither is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
Again, that's like saying everybody could marry someone of the same race.
If a woman were to walk into the JP and ask to marry a man she'd be treated differently than a man who did the exact same thing, just because of her gender. You should at least act like you have some real character, and admit that's true.
akpilot wrote:
"Plaintiffs cite Loving for the proposition that a statute can discriminate even if it treats both classes identically. This misconstrues the Loving analysis because the antimiscegenation statute did not treat blacks and whites identically—it restricted who whites could marry (but did not restrict intermarriage between non-whites) for the purpose of promoting white supremacy.
By restricting who whites could marry, it restricted who non-whites could marry.(They couldn't marry whites.)
akpilot wrote:
Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was the quintessential example of invidious racial discrimination as it was intended to advantage one race and disadvantage all others, which is why the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny and struck it down as violating the core interest of the Equal Protection Clause.
In contrast, neither men nor women are disproportionately disadvantaged or burdened by the fact that New York's Domestic Relations Law allows only opposite-sex couples to marry—both genders are treated precisely the same way. As such, there is no gender [*16]classification triggering intermediate scrutiny."- Hernandez v Robels
But, that's not the case. Women and men are treated differently.
But, even if they were treated equally, that still would not be a good argument against gay marriage. It should be allowed because there is no good reason not to allow it.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#150536 Jul 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
They are treated exactly the same, neither is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
"Plaintiffs cite Loving for the proposition that a statute can discriminate even if it treats both classes identically. This misconstrues the Loving analysis because the antimiscegenation statute did not treat blacks and whites identically—it restricted who whites could marry (but did not restrict intermarriage between non-whites) for the purpose of promoting white supremacy. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was the quintessential example of invidious racial discrimination as it was intended to advantage one race and disadvantage all others, which is why the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny and struck it down as violating the core interest of the Equal Protection Clause.
In contrast, neither men nor women are disproportionately disadvantaged or burdened by the fact that New York's Domestic Relations Law allows only opposite-sex couples to marry—both genders are treated precisely the same way. As such, there is no gender [*16]classification triggering intermediate scrutiny."- Hernandez v Robels
Nothing more than hate speak.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#150537 Jul 15, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
She's finally found a way to stop making such a pathetic fool of herself.
Now she just responds with "Rose's Law" and the IQ of her posts quadruples.
Rose's Law rules.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#150538 Jul 15, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
Gay marriage will be the law of the land in California by October of this year.
Washington, Maryland, and Maine will all soon have marriage equality after the November election.
And in New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii there are law suits for gay marriage which will go to the courts.
DOMA is going to the Supreme Court.
By 2013 gay marriage might be legal in 13 US states and the federal government will also recognize gay marriage after DOMA is done.
You can't stop equality from happening. Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. It's inevitable.
I wouldn't bet money on that.

Another Jerry Sandusky or Larry Brinkin and your marriage "equality" gets sidelined forever.

You people have yet to explain Larry Brinkin.

Brinkin, you'll remember, was one of founders of the same-sex marriage movement.

Well, you haven't explained him and seem in no great hurry to do so. Specifically, you haven't explained how we prevent another Larry Brinkin from adopting a little boy.

Well, how do we?
Reality

Madison, WI

#150539 Jul 15, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
She's finally found a way to stop making such a pathetic fool of herself.
Now she just responds with "Rose's Law" and the IQ of her posts quadruples.
Simply avoiding your bisexuality will not make it go away. As I suggested earlier today, it would be in the best interest of your mental health if you simply accept your sexuality. Perhaps a qualified therapist would be able to assist you in your deep seated hatred of yourself. You have to learn to love yourself before you can love others. Just remember God loves you just the way you are, after all He made you the bisexual that you are. Embrace your sexuality and be one with it, your mental health is at stake.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150540 Jul 15, 2012
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay marriage is NOT a constitutional right, and neither is Marriage itself.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
It is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Please stop this gay tactic of misleading and misrepresenting your position. Thank you.
And equal protection is mentioned in the Constitution.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#150541 Jul 15, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
BooHoo now I'm a bigot because I chose not to be pushed to accept the homo lifestyle, BFD you are second class my friend get used to it ...
Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is. Oh that’s right, you’re just another loser who thinks that disparaging others elevates you to a higher stature. Seriously, you’ve said this so many times that no one believes it and I doubt that you do either. Reality is that you can become more than you are now if you just get off your duff and do something about it. Stop following the path of least resistance and do something to better yourself.

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.

Garden Grove Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Irene's Friend: Pretty as a Potato and Twice as... 4 hr Horace 3
Shctamy (Jan '15) 4 hr Night In 28
God Declares: New York Times Sucks 4 hr Elton Peter 1
police helicopter in la mirada 6 hr ellerose 1
News Huntington Beach Amends Proposed Nudity Ban To ... (Mar '08) 8 hr Michelle has a cock 6
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 9 hr Observer 5,717
News Shopping center giants face off in CarlsbadAug ... 14 hr bodhi451 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Garden Grove Mortgages