Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Rose_NoHo]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

<quoted text>Gay's Law: Gays in a park scream, where are the children.
Allowing do/gay marriage will not stop gays from marrying.
So, how is gay marriage not a father/mother since gays having been marrying and becoming biological parents for centuries.
Yes, thanks for making our point, because the Supreme Court already riled that the ban on same sex marriage is supported by the 14th Amendment, not prohibited.
Game over.

Did you remove random words from your post? It makes no sense.

[Rose_NoHo]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

<quoted text>That is what we have been telling you, homosexuality is not essential to human survival, in fact gays are counterproductive to survival of the species, and same sex marriage is not a fundamental right for people who choose to act on gay urges.

There always have been gay people, and there always will be. Humanity is surviving just fine. How are they counterproductive to human survival?

Marriage is a fundamental right. Why are you against equal rights?

[FitterREPUBLICAN]

President Obama visits Los Angeles, California for star-studded fundraiser concert tonight October 07, 2012.

Ther only republican you might see are the ones protesting or shouting nasty comments.

[Ronald]

Once again, the nation's first African president is hobnobbing with his rich Hollywood "Liberal" pals for the purpose of collecting money for POLITICAL PURPOSES. In view of the dire economic condition the nation faces, shouldn't he be in Washington trying to fix the Obama economy?

Ronald

[Rose_NoHo]

Ronald wrote:

Once again, the nation's first African president

Why are you fundies such racists? Don't you believe god created us all?
(Didn't bother reading the rest of your post.)

[NY4now]

WHY VOTE wrote:

Ok, I don't really care if same sex people get married or are together in any capacity. I am for equal rights BUT.......... I am very annoyed that peoples votes don't mean anything anymore. What happened to a majority vote rules? What happened to the peoples voice?
My stance on this has nothing to do with same sex couples. This is just the latest thing a court has overturned or blocked that THE PEOPLE voted for. Look at AZ., look back at prop. 187 which would have saved is billions in illegal immigrant funding. The people of the USA are trying to make changes to better our country and the few judges are effectively disenfranchising us.
Again this is not directed at same sex couples it is major frustration over the majority loosing there voice.
WHY VOTE????

Now stop and think about that for a minute...What do you suppose would have happened in the 60's/70's if we let the states vote on whether or not interracial marriage should be legal? Would it have been acceptable at that time, because you know there were a lot of bigots who would have said NO WAY!

[Ronald]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you fundies such racists? Don't you believe god created us all?
(Didn't bother reading the rest of your post.)

Rose_NoHo.

Yes. "Racist" is a vague political emotionalism of no fixed defined meaning. It is similar to the invented emotionalism "Homophobe". The purpose of emotionalisms of like kind is to move the political debate ever leftward in order to achieve revolutionary objectives.

Ronald

[jacques renault]

NY4now wrote:

<quoted text>
Now stop and think about that for a minute...What do you suppose would have happened in the 60's/70's if we let the states vote on whether or not interracial marriage should be legal? Would it have been acceptable at that time, because you know there were a lot of bigots who would have said NO WAY!

I need to stop you right there, you homosexual.

The majority of states allowed blacks and whites to marry before Loving.

In fact the state that was the defendant in Loving allowed all races to marry with one exception, being of course blacks could not marry whites.

You've already been humiliated: to top it off, the very same Supreme Court laughed you homosexuals out of court in Baker v Nelson, and reportedly (if Bob Woodward is to be believed) Thurgood Marshall, THE Civil Rights attorney, fell off his chair.

[Ronald]

NY4now wrote:

<quoted text>
Now stop and think about that for a minute...What do you suppose would have happened in the 60's/70's if we let the states vote on whether or not interracial marriage should be legal? Would it have been acceptable at that time, because you know there were a lot of bigots who would have said NO WAY!

NY4now.

Your point is well taken. One chink in the argument though, is that the same ones who loudly demand the nation should observe republican ideals when it suits them are also the most vocal in their demands that the nation is "a democracy" when it likewise suits them.

This has been an especial dilemma since the revolution, afterward of which the judicial system was changed to reflect revolutionary change, rather than strict constitutional interpretation - the Republican's 14th Amendment notwithstanding.

The outcome has been the establishment of a dysfunctional arbitrary and capricious Government. The elimination of individual rights and the replacement of those individual rights with easily manipulable group "rights" has left the individual powerless and uncertain before an all-powerful central Government. No one knows where he stands.

Ronald

[Some Day Never Comes]

jacques renault wrote:

<quoted text>
I need to stop you right there, you homosexual.
The majority of states allowed blacks and whites to marry before Loving.
In fact the state that was the defendant in Loving allowed all races to marry with one exception, being of course blacks could not marry whites.
You've already been humiliated: to top it off, the very same Supreme Court laughed you homosexuals out of court in Baker v Nelson, and reportedly (if Bob Woodward is to be believed) Thurgood Marshall, THE Civil Rights attorney, fell off his chair.

The very first national polls that came out in favor of inter-racial marriages did not happen until 1992! Before then the majority of Americans were in fact against inter-racial marriages! Care to try again? LOL

[jacques renault]

Some Day Never Comes wrote:

<quoted text>
The very first national polls that came out in favor of inter-racial marriages did not happen until 1992! Before then the majority of Americans were in fact against inter-racial marriages! Care to try again? LOL

It's your brain that never came

[CompanyR]

Anger Management for Online Trolls who just can't leave it alone, always playing with it in public too.

That motovates them a lot.

Said with smile and a grin, just like Willard Mitt Romney.

[Rick in Kansas]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

Dismissing Judith Reisman and science proves that you are gay.

Dismissing Judith Reisman and what she attempts to pass off as science proves that one is capable of reason and distinguishing facts from her agenda driven fiction.

[Tata]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
The 14th Amendment grants all US citizens equal protection, so denying all US citizens equal protection violates the 14th Amendment.
This isn't rocket surgery...

Maybe the 14th does all it says it does, but only to a certain point and only for a normal society. The 14th never took or considered two males or two females as being normal. The gay cult is once again twisting, shaping and mixing up meanings of words to suit temselves.

[Tata]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are fundies such racists?
(Did bother reading the rest of your post.)
Christianity = hate!
That's what I've learned from Topix.

Why are liberals so selfish ? the liberals in the topix forum only care about their odd agenda and to restructure the rights all citizens have to suit their own odd lifestyle.

[Rick in Kansas]

jacques renault wrote:

The majority of states allowed blacks and whites to marry before Loving.

The job was left to the state because the SCOTUS had ruled in 1883 in Pace v Alabama that such restrictions don't violate equal protection.

jacques renault wrote:

In fact the state that was the defendant in Loving allowed all races to marry with one exception, being of course blacks could not marry whites.

The actual fact is that The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 prohibited Whites from marrying all those who were classified as non-White and vice versa, not just Blacks, but Native Americans and those of Asian descent as well.

jacques renault wrote:

You've already been humiliated: to top it off, the very same Supreme Court laughed you homosexuals out of court in Baker v Nelson, and reportedly (if Bob Woodward is to be believed) Thurgood Marshall, THE Civil Rights attorney, fell off his chair.

It took 84 years to get the Supremes to overturn the 'humiliation' that was Pace v Alabama sweetie, it won't take us nearly as long to overturn Baker, in fact, the very basis for the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling no longer holds true as there are now states which recognize the right of same sex marriage. Its value as precedent is done and the next time it is dragged before the Court it will be for its last rites.

[Tata]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Stupid, I asked for a *special* right gay people are asking for.

That's easy .. The right to be recognized and have SSM, the right to teach homosexuality in "Public" schools, the right to marry someone who is HIV/AIDS infected so they can get government assistanace for the entire household, I can go on and on.

[Tata]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
There always have been gay people, and there always will be. Humanity is surviving just fine. How are they counterproductive to human survival?
Marriage is a fundamental right. Why are you against equal rights?

For a someone who claims they ar e not gay you sure have a lot of nothing to say!!!! what's in it for you? you selfish person and hater ???

[CompanyR]

This sounds like an IDIOT republican who is stuck on stupid, Willard Mitt Romney and selling his brand of religion, pouhie!

[Tata]

It is amazing how the gay cult swarms to the "Judge it" box to change the opinions of the normal people in this forum. Ahh the tricks of the trade. LMAO