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.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#163990 Oct 19, 2012
True I donít look around to see who I can deny rights to, in an American, I value freedom.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163991 Oct 19, 2012
Big D wrote:
True I donít look around to see who I can deny rights to, in an American, I value freedom.
Wow! cool.
FT record

La Puente, CA

#163992 Oct 19, 2012
For the record, it was President Obama who authorized the mission; it happened on his watch, so he gets credit.
Tata

Westminster, CA

#163993 Oct 19, 2012
Big D wrote:
Last time I looked there were some 18,000 legal gay marriages in the state of California, I donít happen to be gay, but I noticed their getting married didnít hurt my marriage in any way at all, I feel sorry for the religious folks whose marriage are so fragile that they claim it hurt theirs.
Take a closer look at your utility bills, and any other public service bill or fees (tax), these are state wide. Although these extra costs are above and beyond your actual utility usage, they off set the cost to finance meds to the Aids/HIV patients for one example, there are others however. Most company health insurance will not pay for a pre-existing illness such as and AIDS/HIV patient. The state very carefully blends these hidden costs in you monthly bills, clever huh ??? It's obvious that SSM is taking advantage of this thinking that by marring they can get double coverage. It sounds complicating because it is most people don't look at the real reasont for tax/fee increases they just pay them.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#163995 Oct 19, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a closer look at your utility bills, and any other public service bill or fees (tax), these are state wide. Although these extra costs are above and beyond your actual utility usage, they off set the cost to finance meds to the Aids/HIV patients for one example, there are others however. Most company health insurance will not pay for a pre-existing illness such as and AIDS/HIV patient. The state very carefully blends these hidden costs in you monthly bills, clever huh ??? It's obvious that SSM is taking advantage of this thinking that by marring they can get double coverage. It sounds complicating because it is most people don't look at the real reasont for tax/fee increases they just pay them.
Yep, hidden medical costs in our utility bills.......are you paranoid? or just simply an azz Bruno?

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#163996 Oct 19, 2012
FT record wrote:
For the record, it was President Obama who authorized the mission; it happened on his watch, so he gets credit.
And it was the House Republicans who failed to provide funding for the extra security that was asked for.......so, yes the President is overall responsible for the mission.......but the Republicans have blood on their hands as well......Boehner has done everything in his power to make the President look as bad as he can!!!

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#163997 Oct 19, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Not once have I used religion as a point in this debate, so again:
This has nothing to do with religion, so come up with a rational argument.
Perhaps you missed my point. I was saying that the only arguments that anyone has been able to come up with are based on religion. Without using false translations of the Bible, the anti-SSM crowd looses any semblance of validity.

And of course, the religious argument fails since the rules of one person's religion have NO bearing on the behavior of people who believe differently.

Beyond that, it simply comes down to the application of the 14th amendment. ALL citizens, INCLUDING unpopular minorities, are entitled to equal protection under the law. Discrimination against a minority requires a compelling state interest, but there is no compelling state interest in denying gays their right to marry.

This would hold true even if sexual orientation were merely a matter of choice, but the current scientific evidence shows that there is a genetic or epigenetic nature to orientation. Thus, the situation is completely analogous to allowing different races to marry, which the courts have already declared a basic right.

Some people vainly attempt to claim that the lack of children (without artificial aid) inhibits the right of gays to marry, yet there is no fertility test for heterosexual couple prior to marriage, not even a question of intent to have children is required. Thus, the lack of intrinsic childbearing capability cannot be viewed as a valid argument against SSM.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#163998 Oct 19, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your point? That the Federal government extended the practice of voting to women?
That in and of itself shows that it is not a "right", it is a privilege.
But if it makes us feel better to call it a "right" so be it, doesn't change reality.
No, it does NOT change voting from a right to a privilege. It merely indicates that prior to that time, women were categorically DENIED their right to vote, for no valid reason beyond the mere fact that they were of a different gender than the Founding Fathers. Hey, the Founding Fathers were good. Considering that they had to invent all of this from scratch, they were incredibly good. But they still suffered from the prejudidices of their time.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#163999 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think I am a child, then you are delirious. How can you promote something "icky" ?
Silly child, I refer to your mental age...

As for promoting something "icky", I don't. I do not "promote" anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, or axillary sex (that's: "armpit"). What I DO promote, indeed I insist upon, is that consenting adults have the right to perform and and all sexual actions to which they can agree. Note that KEY phrase: "consenting adults".

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#164000 Oct 19, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Don't need to. Got what I need. You?
Are you comming out? Well good for you. I am sure you can and will find love, just not from me. My wife does not share her fella.
Edgar

Los Angeles, CA

#164001 Oct 19, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly child, I refer to your mental age...
As for promoting something "icky", I don't. I do not "promote" anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, or axillary sex (that's: "armpit"). What I DO promote, indeed I insist upon, is that consenting adults have the right to perform and and all sexual actions to which they can agree. Note that KEY phrase: "consenting adults".
I take it then that you and yours are okay with her being filmed with burros and you fellating black men since you are both consenting adults.

Right?

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#164002 Oct 19, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, wise guy, how about prostitution ?
well, what about it? It is an act between consenting adults, an agreement to exchange a service for payment.

Oh, there are certainly potential complicating factors, like the possibility of one person being breaching a promise of fidelity to an outside party. And of course, sex trafficking removes the point of consent from one party. And of course, since it involves some degree of promiscuity, even with safe sex precautions, there is a risk of disease. But even with these considerations, there are remedies within the legal framework that raise serious questions regarding the validity of the laws creating a blanket prohibition of prostitution.
Tata

Los Angeles, CA

#164003 Oct 19, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, hidden medical costs in our utility bills.......are you paranoid? or just simply an azz Bruno?
Fkk off.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#164004 Oct 19, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you comming out? Well good for you. I am sure you can and will find love, just not from me. My wife does not share her fella.
Like I said, I have what I need. I'm real proud that you do too!

I certainly don't need or want your gnarly ass or your wife's either. Why would you ask?

P.S. Maybe I am gay. So what? You some kind of homophobe or something?

TOO FUNNY!
Edgar

Los Angeles, CA

#164005 Oct 19, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you comming out? Well good for you. I am sure you can and will find love, just not from me. My wife does not share her fella.
You're nuts. I cyber boned your missus two nites ago. She's a great on-line ho!
Edgar

Spring, TX

#164006 Oct 19, 2012
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it then that you and yours are okay with her being filmed with burros and you fellating black men since you are both consenting adults.
Right?
nice try, bro.

next time, hide your location. I don't live in LA.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#164007 Oct 19, 2012
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it then that you and yours are okay with her being filmed with burros and you fellating black men since you are both consenting adults.
Right?
That Jazzybird58 jackass might want some of that action. He and his wife just hit on me.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#164008 Oct 19, 2012
LBer wrote:
Hay all (what up Rose!),
Sorry, been away on business; too busy.
Found this article in the Military Press; note how our liberal left media continued the Vietnam war:
General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general, the architect of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975, is cited as crediting Presidential aspirant John Kerry and his VVAW with helping them achieve victory. In Giap's 1985 memoir about the war, he wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S." Giap was quoted as saying, "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!"
Old news. Any body who looks at the facts knows that we had won the military campaign. In fact, when we called them to the table to negotiate our withdrawal, they were expecting us to open up with a demand to surrender.

But it is purely partisan politics to try and place the blame on Kerry and the VAW. The American press was broadcasting the war right into people's livingrooms every night on the news. People were tired of the images of death and destruction. The VAW was only one group among many who were protesting the war.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#164009 Oct 19, 2012
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it then that you and yours are okay with her being filmed with burros and you fellating black men since you are both consenting adults.
Right?
What an incredibly stupid question, on numerous points, but most specifically: I have no interest in fellating men of ANY race, she has no interest in beastiality,(and the burro CANNOT consent in any event), and neither of us is interested in creating film for public consumption.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#164010 Oct 19, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
We all have a creator Rose, do you think we just pop out of thin air?
Unlike the Founding Fathers, we now have science that shows that a creator is not necessary for our existence...

No, the Big Bang theory and evolution do not, in and of themselves, "prove" that there is no creator (science can not do that!), but they work quite well to explain existence without invoking supernatural actions.

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Aug 27 Norbert of Norview 71,944
News SD-area man gets 14 years for abusing wife (Jan '11) Aug 22 dGo mnaDde lyHo i... 5
News Fear mongering in Spreckels will have been in vain Aug 7 I am sorry 1
Monterey Public Officials VIOLATING FEDERAL LAWS Aug 7 Un agenda 21 and ... 6
News Del Rey Oaks Garden Center grand opening schedu... Jul '15 Kathi Buckley Smith 1
drugs Jul '15 JayJay 2
News Sex offender Tom Pollacci pleads not guilty to ... (Mar '09) Jul '15 martin5 360
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages