Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201881 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.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162203 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
You missed where he admitted in writing that he "moved the strike zone" in this case
If Walker's ruling had survived intact through the Court of Appeal's ruling, we wouldn't be talking the evident fate of just California's amendment, but the fate of all of them. Given the disastrous court record of the proponents, he went for putting them all out of their misery. The three Judge panel didn't even take him to task for it, because he did get one thing right, there is no way you can call what went on in California constitutional.
jacques renault wrote:
Walker was in the closet until he was outed recently
Although he had never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, it wasn't a secret either. BOTH sides were aware of it before trial. Hell, readers of this forum could have known about it if they read the article I posted on here before the trial began.
jacques renault wrote:
Before then, like you he was maintaining deep cover as a homosexual, he for selfish reasons, which he more than made up for to his Frisco friends his last day on the job
Let's see, everybody who thought they might need to know, did know and the Judge who heard the claim that the mere fact that he was homosexual was an indication of his bias politely laughed the argument so hard out of court that they haven't bothered to appeal it. California's amendment is done for, get used to it.
jacques renault

Chicago, IL

#162204 Oct 5, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If Walker's ruling had survived intact through the Court of Appeal's ruling, we wouldn't be talking the evident fate of just California's amendment, but the fate of all of them. Given the disastrous court record of the proponents, he went for putting them all out of their misery. The three Judge panel didn't even take him to task for it, because he did get one thing right, there is no way you can call what went on in California constitutional.
<quoted text>Although he had never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, it wasn't a secret either. BOTH sides were aware of it before trial. Hell, readers of this forum could have known about it if they read the article I posted on here before the trial began.
<quoted text>Let's see, everybody who thought they might need to know, did know and the Judge who heard the claim that the mere fact that he was homosexual was an indication of his bias politely laughed the argument so hard out of court that they haven't bothered to appeal it. California's amendment is done for, get used to it.
Why?

Two US Supreme Court Justices have already said this will be as easy as Baker v Nelson

The score is 2-0 against you at this point
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#162206 Oct 5, 2012
These wouldn't be two (out of Nine) of the same justices that thought the Affordable Care Act was Unconstitutional, would they?

How'd that turn out, again?

Continue advocating keeping a portion of the population as second class citizens. How American of you.
Fracking

La Puente, CA

#162207 Oct 5, 2012
Just open it up and they pump it all in.
jacques renault

Chicago, IL

#162208 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
These wouldn't be two (out of Nine) of the same justices that thought the Affordable Care Act was Unconstitutional, would they?
How'd that turn out, again?
Continue advocating keeping a portion of the population as second class citizens. How American of you.
Or French. You already lost in the French Supreme Court.

by the way, it's "cite"

not "site"
SpongeBob

Fresh Meadows, NY

#162209 Oct 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, just sock it to me!
O.K. Here goes...

What do you think of this? AND have you ever heard this before?

Someone called into C-Span with a theory that said (PARAPHRASE) ethnic/religious groups that have been profoundly damaged or humiliated by another group suffer a “Form of PTSD called…???.”(she gave a name, which I don’t remember)

....But it’s a syndrome that lasts for generations. This would include groups like Native Americans (genocide) Jews (genocide) Armenians (genocide) African Americans (slavery)...Irish (whatever the Brits did).... anyway, you get the idea.

The suffering and pain inflicted on these groups lasts for generations and so far there has been no recognition of this kind of disorder and it should be addressed.

An example she gave was GW Bush’s use of the word “crusade” after the 9/11 attack. The Christian Science Monitor said…
“ Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.
His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years…..

...And so it goes on and on...the damaged groups, just like PTSD victims, relive past hurts that, and can live on through generations....

I just saw in the paper the grandson of a Concentration Camp victim had his grandmother's number tattooed on his own arm...

Your thoughts please...
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#162210 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
Or French. You already lost in the French Supreme Court.
Really? You got a link to that? You wouldn't be making up LIES would you?
jacques renault wrote:
by the way, it's "cite"
not "site"
You are correct. I was hoping nobody noticed.
SpongeBob

Fresh Meadows, NY

#162211 Oct 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, just sock it to me!
And if you can stand anymore...

This PTSD may also be said of the Southern Confederacy, as much of the war was fought on their ground, so they suffered not only loss of life, but the trauma of having enemy soldiers on their territory and its lasting effects.

The Confederate flag, which for Northerners belongs in museums and/or on personal property think to fly it on public lands is treasonous, because of what it represents. It's especially repulsive to African Americans, as you probably know...

Anyway, is the question....Should the damaged groups be the sole “deciders”/aribiters as to what kind of “band aids” need be applied to help “scab up” wounds that may never heal?

Is the answer is “no” because they can’t, in all probability, find solutions that will not “hurt” another (enemy) culture, creating yet another “PTSD” group?

Is this a valid "diagnosis" of what's wrong with us?
Anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#162212 Oct 5, 2012
Gay Sex is Against the Constitution, Says Judge Scalia
http://politix.topix.com/item/2383-gay-sex-is...
jacques renault

Chicago, IL

#162213 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Really? You got a link to that? You wouldn't be making up LIES would you?
http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_p...

and i quote:
"Selon la loi française, le mariage est l’union d’un homme et d’une femme."

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162214 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Marriage is a right. Why do you claim it's not?
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions. I know you have trouble with reading comprehension.

BTW, Justice Scalia would not agree with you, and his opinion actually matters while yours does not.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162215 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Frisbee gave you a whipping.
Well, based on the whippings you receive daily, I guess you would be the expert.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162216 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,". Basic civil rights are a subset of rights. So, marriage is a right.
You claim it's not.
Why do you always stop there, why do refuse to include the rest of the statement?

Fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162217 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>I can read just fine. I'm worried about you though. The case YOU sited is the one that proves you wrong. How is it that escapes you?
<quoted text>Yeah, and they say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. Have you been drinking?
<quoted text>Exactly which part did I miscomprehend? The part where you said marriage isn't a right, or the part where the United States Supreme Court says it is?
Any Milk Runs lately? I've got one next week.
Yawn.. Reading comprehension- try it.
jacques renault

Chicago, IL

#162218 Oct 5, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Gay Sex is Against the Constitution, Says Judge Scalia
http://politix.topix.com/item/2383-gay-sex-is...
what a quote factory that Justice Antonin is!
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#162219 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
Seems someone forgot to tell the government:
http://www.nomblog.com/28085/
akpilot wrote:
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions. I know you have trouble with reading comprehension.
I have no trouble whatsoever, and your condescension on such easily verifiable fact is making you look foolish. You didn't say it was a "right with restrictions", you said it was NOT a Right:
akpilot wrote:
There is no RIGHT to marriage..
Now, are you going to be man enough to admit you were wrong, or are you going to persist in backpedaling and pretending that your statement was misconstrued?
akpilot wrote:
Yawn.. Reading comprehension- try it.
Right back atya, sport.

Nothing to say about the Milk Run or the cut? Every AK pilot knows what I'm talking about. Why is it you don't seem to?
akpilot wrote:
BTW, Justice Scalia would not agree with you, and his opinion actually matters while yours does not.
Actually his opinion doesn't matter, as it was decided in 1967.
Jim Beam

Tempe, AZ

#162220 Oct 5, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Gay Sex is Against the Constitution, Says Judge Scalia
http://politix.topix.com/item/2383-gay-sex-is...
In the first place what does sodomy have to do with the topic of this thread? Secondly the Supreme court already struck down ALL sodomy laws making them ALL null and void in 1973! Thirdly if sodomy was still against the law there would be a hell of a lot of US heteros in jail because approximately 34% of US partake in anal sex with our girlfriends and or wives! But once again,what does that have to do with the topic of Marriage equality in the state of California? Care to try again? LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162221 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Seems someone forgot to tell the government:
http://www.nomblog.com/28085/
<quoted text>I have no trouble whatsoever, and your condescension on such easily verifiable fact is making you look foolish. You didn't say it was a "right with restrictions", you said it was NOT a Right:
<quoted text>Now, are you going to be man enough to admit you were wrong, or are you going to persist in backpedaling and pretending that your statement was misconstrued?
<quoted text>Right back atya, sport.
Nothing to say about the Milk Run or the cut? Every AK pilot knows what I'm talking about. Why is it you don't seem to?
<quoted text>Actually his opinion doesn't matter, as it was decided in 1967.
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, it simply isn't there- feel free to prove me wrong by citing the Article and Section of the Constitution which addresses marriage.

Now, as I tried to explain to you, the SCOTUS has fabricated this right to marriage, but they have done so with caveats, I listed them for you. But like I said, you have a reading comprehension problem.
jacques renault

Chicago, IL

#162222 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Seems someone forgot to tell the government:
http://www.nomblog.com/28085/
a politician promised something?

not my concern

The French Supreme Court has ruled

you should have seen how the French analogs of the two Roses cried
Winston Smith

Woodbridge, VA

#162223 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
<quoted text>
careful, Winston, we've got a bucking Tranny
how are things in Up Black Eddy? LMAO
I dunno, but it must be bettet than where ever you are.

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.

Glendale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Mini mouse 20,637
A list actor molester 19 hr Scurious 2
Review: Lynch Plumbing 21 hr CEO Water D Rescue 1
Glendale Mugshots and Criminal Arrest Records Sep 23 Anonymous 3
Armenian Gangs in Altadena/Pasadena. (Jan '10) Sep 22 HyeLife 89
News Another Alleged Gelson's Shoplifter Arrested; M... (May '11) Sep 18 Fanclub 16
News Hate crimes rise in Glendale, Burbank (Jan '13) Sep 17 afriend 3

Glendale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Glendale Mortgages