Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201820 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.

danny escobedo

Concord, CA

#150687 Jul 16, 2012
hey are you talking about the same broad or the same dude,no i dont think if a person buys and watches a porno that means their interested in both genders.let alone their not even actors,there doing it.me i like the female species,no no groupy stuff,i just boil in anger.
Reality

Madison, WI

#150688 Jul 16, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, Socrates, there's enough public mensroom philosophers in the behind the bushes without you chiming in. And you're certainly entitled to believe all the LGBT swill you want but using it to justify transvestite school teachers and gay adoption is something else again.
See, that's the part you don't get -- children pay the price for your degenerate liberalism. That's right -- children will end up half-nude on websites like rent-a-boy because you can't exercise judgement and discipline when required.
The LGBT is a sex cult, that's the simplest and purest explanation -- and they never would have elevated beyond that low point hadn't morons like you become their enablers.
It's your duty to raise your child heterosexual. There is no greater duty on the planet -- but you want to expand on this to include homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality because a bunch men who parade down Broadway in penis suits and erect penis hats convinced you little boys in dresses is a viable option too.
Idiot!
Same-sex marriage as the brainchild of Larry Brinkin. He was one of the first to float the idea and the reason why he put it out there was so that monsters like himself could fill their bedrooms with little boys.
That's right -- there's a fine line between homosexuality and pedophilia, a line gay males are apparently are unable to stop from crossing.
If you had sense Catholic priests would be all the evidence you need. But you don't have sense -- no more sense than those straight morons on health boards 30 years ago who allowed gays to turn bath houses into floating orgies.
Why do you rail against homosexuality when you are bisexual? My friend seek help, be one with your softer side. I seem to remember reading a post that 77 % of pedophiles are married heterosexual men. By chance are you one?
Reality

Madison, WI

#150689 Jul 16, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, if you're going to invoke the Constitution you should be able to reference where the people who wrote it are on record for supporting same-sex marriage.
You've never done that yet continue to tell us the Constitution is the legal basis for same-sex marriage.
This reminds me of something Gobbels said: "tell a lie big enough and everybody will believe it."
Is that the same thing as you claiming to be a heterosexual? Do YOU believe it yet? Face up to the facts YOU like to have sex with men and women.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#150690 Jul 16, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>Poor little man, Stuck at home trolling rent boy sites....maybe someday you will get out of mommy's basement and travel all the way to Canada.
we don't have basements here in Vallarta as the amount of rain we get in the summer would flood them

We do have palapas and that is where I have been for most of the day except for a few hours at the American school were I addressed a group of students

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#150691 Jul 16, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>Good points.

And rather than being a victory for same-sex marriage, Massachusetts is the best thing that could have happened for those who oppose it.

Before the ink was dry on their same-sex marriage law gay activists had launched their frontal assault on chldren through-out the state. These predators made no secret about their objective -- converting heterosexual kids into homosexual kids.
http://www.massresistance.org/
gay parades did the same here
Once gays had SSM they went crazy.
They tried to force their way into churches
They had sex on the beach and in many cases on the street
They would fondle each others in stores an restaurants

They blew it and the straight community fought back and now they are regulated even more than before SSM

The same thing is happening around the USA

When California voted to ban SSM the gays thought it would never happen in another state
Today we have more than 30 that ban SSM
Give them enough rope and they have hung them self

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#150692 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus tap dancing Christ...
I'm not making that claim.
Look up the term "straw man argument".

Prof Marvel wrote, "
If you can't do that, you're playing lawyer games NOT making any valid legal point.
"

Then look up "non sequitur".
nice trampy tranny ho post again...LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150693 Jul 16, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!
You're such a pomous little punk.
I'll bet a wet cottonball has more backbone than you in real life.
Interesting, you never seem to be able to refute anything I say, just continue with your childish banter. Perhaps it's time you moved from your parents basement?

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150694 Jul 16, 2012
Bruno wrote:
Awww ... somebody didn"t get andy dick last night ...
How would you know that Bruno?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150695 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The "whatever" was in reply to your comment, not anything the court said.
My comment WAS a quote from the court you idiot.

Your response was "whatever", hence you simply choose to ignore any fact which does not agree with your fantasy.

You love to refute any factual statement by simply say- Red Herring.

I got one for you Rose- Confirmation Bias- You suffer from a severe case of it.
Reality

Madison, WI

#150696 Jul 16, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know that Bruno?
Peeping Bruno. Next time throw some back into it and show him how its done.
Reality

Madison, WI

#150697 Jul 16, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
gay parades did the same here
Once gays had SSM they went crazy.
They tried to force their way into churches
They had sex on the beach and in many cases on the street
They would fondle each others in stores an restaurants
They blew it and the straight community fought back and now they are regulated even more than before SSM
The same thing is happening around the USA
When California voted to ban SSM the gays thought it would never happen in another state
Today we have more than 30 that ban SSM
Give them enough rope and they have hung them self
Do you find Nude Bike ride day equally revoulting?

http://www.google.com/imgres...
Reality

Madison, WI

#150698 Jul 16, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
My comment WAS a quote from the court you idiot.
Your response was "whatever", hence you simply choose to ignore any fact which does not agree with your fantasy.
You love to refute any factual statement by simply say- Red Herring.
I got one for you Rose- Confirmation Bias- You suffer from a severe case of it.
Does this comment ring a bell?

"Interesting, you never seem to be able to refute anything I say, just continue with your childish banter. Perhaps it's time you moved from your parents basement?" Amazing simply amazing.
Yappers

Monrovia, CA

#150699 Jul 16, 2012
A new day and new bunch of B.S. - so keep the yapping alive and real.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150700 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you are upset because you can't come up with a good argument against gay marriage, so feel free to fk off.
<quoted text>
I pass gas that is better educated than you are.
Is that your best Rose??

I never made an argument against "same sex marriage" you idiot, I couldn't care less if they get married. The issue is your fantasy that the Constitution somehow requires its acceptance by society.

This is your problem Rose, you are incapable of critical thinking, you cannot argue a point outside of your already selected talking points. Without terms like- homophobe, condumb, and racist you are completely lost.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150701 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dummy, you need to calm down, and quit foaming at the mouth whenever you see my name! Read what I actually posted. I didn't mention slavery.
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.

You are the one who seems to think everything relates to slavery and black suppression in this country- newsflash Rose, it doesn't.
Still Bill for Equality

Dublin, CA

#150702 Jul 16, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>Google Obamas birth certificate, you will find a link to the government/white house. The man is a natural born citizen
Your wish is my command buddy! Here you go! The guy is an obvious idiot conspiracy theorist and a first class nut job,not to mention the state of Hawaii has already made his official Birth cirtificate available to the public! But waaay off topic none the less!LOL

Obama is a U.S. citizen
www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthc...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150703 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The founding fathers allowed slavery, but didn't allow women to vote. Fk what they had in mind, they are all fossilized worm poop by now.
Thank's for proving my point Rose.

Again, everything doesn't have to do with slavery.
Let vote again

Monrovia, CA

#150704 Jul 16, 2012
Opponents of a law that requires California public schools to teach the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Has once again failed to qualify a California stat ballot measure to overturned this requirement.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#150705 Jul 16, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Several states have already put laws in place that make define marriage as a union between opposite sexes. If your position is these laws will be stricken down because same-sex marriage causes no harm, you need to pull your head out of either your own as or your boyfriend's.
You have no legal standing.
You're a sex cult masquerading as a minority.
That's all.
You meant to say several states have laws thst restrict marriages between men and women only.

Idiot. Don't make it sound like it's a movement because it's not.

And WTF do you know about my "position"???- You've been so busy spouting bullshit and lies you don't know my position.

Here it is. Get out your Big Chief notebeook and a number 2 pencil so you don't miss it.

I too was vehemently against gay marriage. Though it mentally dicked up little kiddies and was unnecessary as making a National Vaseline Day where the nation would stop and thank the makers of that fine petroleum jelly for all it's multiple uses.

Found out it didn't affect children, including those in gay families care and it was necessary given the gays we're talking about are FELLOW (understand the word now)....fellow American citizens whom are due their full set of rights and liberties if we're to claim we abide by the Constitution and the land we live in.

Now...believe it or not I too don't like gay parades, men in tights, tansgendered characters or gay marriage. No shit. But on the other hand I don't l;ike fat, greast rednecks marrying whales for wsives telling the rest of the country on how to live. We all have our thing. You probably less given you're an anti-social weirdo but we do. Some gays may just give me the finger for stating I don't like their marriages but that STILL does not give me righteousness to stop their path to freedoms.

There's just as many good gays out there in percentages than there are "good" heterosexuals (I'm not one of them but I know they exist). They're your fellow citizens shitass. And they're truly none of your God damned business. You're just not gettging it and as I see one state to the next allow their marriages I will feel b etter that we live in a free country our Founding Fathers not only created but where thousands upon thousands of brave men and women died for.

Freedom. Maybe you don't like the word. Move to another country. Some stone gays. Live there. This isn't where you want to be Chief.

And "my boyfriend". My wife would be the first to kick your ass for calling her that...all I'd need to do is bag what was left and haul you to the curb for trash day.

Get lost. Seriously. You've got 3 choices in socialization from what I've seen. Banter in the internet as some freakish registered troll as you have for years. Try to talk to the clewrk who bags your groceries who no doubt mov es faster than he ever did in his part time career given he wants you gone to or join the KKK. They share your beliefs.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150706 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
NATURAL born, not NATIVE born. They are two different things. NATURAL born means you were a citizen at the time of your birth. NATIVE born means you were born on US soil. Again, notice the Constitution says NATURAL born. You can be a NATURAL born citizen if one of your parents is a US citizen at the time of your birth, even if you were born on the Moon.
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???

"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 ...)

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.

Los Altos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
FireFox Sucks Now 2 hr Phillip 1
allentown ny inbred (Mar '09) Fri katkenyon 261
News Soon everyone will be an electric company (Jul '14) Fri Mike Honka 16
Jamba Juice good deal? Jul 2 kfog01 1
News Off Deadline: Impending sea-level rise will aff... Jul 2 Chalsae 3
Where I can buy wireless hdmi extender up to 200M? Jul 2 HDgenius 1
News Long Beacha s middle class, then ... and now Mar '15 Lucy 4
More from around the web

Los Altos People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Los Altos Mortgages