Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201844 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.

CAL MAN

Los Angeles, CA

#165564 Oct 28, 2012
Gay people getting married what the hell is going on.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#165565 Oct 28, 2012
Rose tactic #1- Act stupid-(not so sure it is an act)
Rose Tactic #2- Misdirect
Rose Tactic #3- Make stupid comments until opposition is tired of replying then claim victory
Rose Tactic #4- Attack the poster- scream Racist, Bigot, Homophobe
Rose Tactic #5- Act intelligent by making silly statistical references such as- Most people who have anal sex are straight-
Rose Tactic #6- Falsely accuse others of lies- when proven wrong through links to previous posts revert back to tactics 2 and 4.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#165566 Oct 28, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? Look at Loving v VA
Next.
Ok, let's take a look at Loving v Virginia, since you have never read it this might be news to you...
" 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
Homosexuality isn't a "race" Rose.
" The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."- Loving V Virginia
Again Rose, homosexuality is not a "Race".. No matter how much you want to cite Loving v Virginia, it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.
The SCOTUS affirmed this by not overturning Hernandez V Robles:
"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of{**7 NY3d at 371} blood than white and American Indian" (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law.
The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the [*12]Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.
In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation."..."Pla intiffs 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. "

Now watch everyone as the puppet dances, acting as if she understands law more than the courts.

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#165567 Oct 28, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
His "boy toy"? He's not gay. But I might be.


He's not gay?'Cause it sure looks like the two of you are in the courtin' phase of an online bromance. But, of course (Real) Rock Hudson wasn't "gay" either... after all he got married to an actually WOMAN once...and what more proof of studly heterosexuality does anyone need?

But the truth is that I actually don't give a crap if you (Faux) Rock (Real) Rock, or anyone else for that matter, is (or isn't) gay. And I apologize for calling you (Faux) Rock's boytoy...I should have considered how clueless you both are and just called you his little bitch.

BTW, the way you always jump right in there to defend (Faux)Rock's "honor" is just adorable! Oh! The joy of new found love!

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#165568 Oct 28, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
and obvious disdain for gays. What's up with that toots?
You're psycho. And boring.
And yet YOU have posted over 100 response to my comments... WTF does that make YOU? I a mean aside from a jobless, friendless, clueless TOPIX troll.

I have to go... but GOOD LUCK coming to terms with your sexuality identity no matter what you decide, but for fucks sake don't go off and marry some unsuspecting woman and then ruin her life by sneaking around with (Faux) Rock or some other creep you meet on the internet.

If "Professor Marvel" were still allowed to post on TOPIX I am sure he would tell you that no good ever comes from sexual deceit...and probably also hit on you for a (down low) blow job...

Good luck and remember until you are married use a condom EVERY TIME you have sex. As "Def Dames Dope" always said..." Don't be silly, put a condom on your willy!"

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#165569 Oct 28, 2012
akpilot wrote:
yak, yak, yak with a smarmy finish
Link?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#165570 Oct 28, 2012
Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:
<quoted text>
He's not gay?'Cause it sure looks like the two of you are in the courtin' phase of an online bromance. But, of course (Real) Rock Hudson wasn't "gay" either... after all he got married to an actually WOMAN once...and what more proof of studly heterosexuality does anyone need?
But the truth is that I actually don't give a crap if you (Faux) Rock (Real) Rock, or anyone else for that matter, is (or isn't) gay. And I apologize for calling you (Faux) Rock's boytoy...I should have considered how clueless you both are and just called you his little bitch.
BTW, the way you always jump right in there to defend (Faux)Rock's "honor" is just adorable! Oh! The joy of new found love!
Does anyone read this homophobic spun out post monkey's long winded insane blather?

You're psycho toots.

Funny stuff!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#165571 Oct 28, 2012
Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:
<quoted text>
Link?
Link to what?

Since the self proclaimed PhD acted like a 5 year old and deleted the post it was responding to I have no idea what it is talking about.

Let me know when you are ready to have an adult conversation, or are you simply a Rose clone?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#165572 Oct 28, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference being you don't find the hourly updates from me. You really don't have a life do you?
That's because you are a stingy bastid Winston! Aw c'mon pinch us out an update you skinflint grouch!

Winston. Cheap with updates. What a cheapskate! And a dope.

Fun!
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

#165573 Oct 28, 2012
Lililth_Satans_Wh_ore wrote:
<quoted text>ya whatever fucktard.... guess you missed the big news.... i'm no longer prostituting or stripping... my man took me out of that life now about a month ago.... he is a retired manager from an airplane manufacturer and we are getting married... ya.. he has a lot of money
Not for long...does he know how much drugs cost?
Anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#165574 Oct 28, 2012
Romney:'Some Gays Are Actually Having Children. It's Not Right on Paper. It's Not Right in Fact.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-si...

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#165575 Oct 28, 2012
Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet YOU have posted over 100 response to my comments... WTF does that make YOU? I a mean aside from a jobless, friendless, clueless TOPIX troll.
I have to go... but GOOD LUCK coming to terms with your sexuality identity no matter what you decide, but for fucks sake don't go off and marry some unsuspecting woman and then ruin her life by sneaking around with (Faux) Rock or some other creep you meet on the internet.
If "Professor Marvel" were still allowed to post on TOPIX I am sure he would tell you that no good ever comes from sexual deceit...and probably also hit on you for a (down low) blow job...
Good luck and remember until you are married use a condom EVERY TIME you have sex. As "Def Dames Dope" always said..." Don't be silly, put a condom on your willy!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =FC2TheliVz4XX
No I did not post 100 responses to your comments you spun out psycho liar! Anyone can see that.

What a dope.

Funny stuff!

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#165579 Oct 28, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Link to what?
Since the self proclaimed PhD acted like a 5 year old and deleted the post it was responding to I have no idea what it is talking about.
Let me know when you are ready to have an adult conversation, or are you simply a Rose clone?
So... it's your OPINION that your long winded rant warranted repetition. I disagree.

And your post was just another repeat of the same same old tired OPINIONS you have been hawking. No more valid this time that there were the other times you bought them up.

1.You are a (brilliant) constitutional scholar and anyone who disagrees with your bullying is a moron.

2..."Loving V Virginia
Homosexuality isn't a "race" yak yak yak....

As for an "adult conversation". That can't happen as long as you continue to be a smarmy name calling asshole.

Bader Ginsburg is 79 years old, Kennedy and Scalia are both 77. So here's hoping that Obama will get to choose the next two (or three) new justices. Assuring that the Constitution will once again be interpreted as a fluid document by a MAJORITY of the court. nations values. After all, THAT is what the founding fathers intended.

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#165580 Oct 28, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
Have you noticed the FBI snitch, with the murderous boyfriend/john, who stepped right in to fill the void ? She is gonna put the mojo on us. And lay down some hoodoo smack.


Wow Rock, you sure do know a lot of this threads history for someone who just got here a couple of weeks ago...

Lets see..you happen to show up two days after Professor Marvelous got his pervert ass kicked off TOPIX. And you happen to you hate women, despise gay men and give off a serious self hating stink...

and LOOK OUT, here comes a smarmathon!
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, unlike you, I am educated.
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can use plenty of words that you will not understand.
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, You're really so common, like dirt....
What are you compensating for?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#165581 Oct 29, 2012
If you prefer marriage law as is, between one man and one woman, you aren't a homophobe or a bigot. They only say so, because they lack a good argument to redefine marriage to include two men or two women.

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#165583 Oct 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Why are you a homophobe?
Actually, I'm more of a trollophobe, assclownophobe and douchophobe. Though it's pretty rare that one person triggers all three phobias like you do.
Mike DiRucci wrote:
No I did not post 100 responses to your comments.
It's up to 102 now. What a douche!

“visit HudsonDildoEmpor ium.com”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#165586 Oct 29, 2012
Zen Master Doc wrote:
<quoted text>So, when did your opinion become relevant past your own nose? Don't worry, Scalia, Ginsburg and Kennedy will be around for Romney, and the court will indeed send same sex marriage packing for gays to repackage it with an const. amendment that will never happen.
Funny thing. It turns out that I don't actually give a shit what you think is and isn't reliant either! And the fact is that since I am not a one issue conservative a SSM constitutional amendment isn't the only issue I am concerned with.

As for Mitt choosing justices? The though of THAT ever happening should make everyone's skin crawl.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#165587 Oct 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The insane tend to laugh a lot.
<quoted text>
Sorry, I forgot my idiot to English decoder ring.
No wonder your post makes so little sense.
akpilot wrote:
It would be if what you claim is true, but since it is a lie you make your own rules.
<quoted text>
Are you claiming you didn't make the post now?
No, dummy, I just asked you to post a link to it. I already admit I made a typo.
akpilot wrote:
Just want to add on to the lies don't you?
<quoted text>
Are you looking in the mirror again?
<quoted text>
You are full of sh%%.
<quoted text>
"I bet you snort when you laugh"
Are you 5?
Yeah, I got it.
You snort when you laugh.
Hey, dummy, I admit I made a typo. The more you go on about it, the funnier it is.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#165588 Oct 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Which race to I hate Rose?
This should be good considering you have no idea what race I am.
Again, dummy, I asked you first. After you tell us which race I don't like, I'll tell you which race you hate. And, no, "all of them" doesn't count.
It doesn't matter what race you are. Why do you think it does? You are vile, stupid and worthless no matter your race.

“Stop the liberal madness”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#165589 Oct 29, 2012
Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing. It turns out that I don't actually give a shit what you think is and isn't reliant either! And the fact is that since I am not a one issue conservative a SSM constitutional amendment isn't the only issue I am concerned with.
As for Mitt choosing justices? The though of THAT ever happening should make everyone's skin crawl.
Dear at the risk of being rude, it is you who makes everyone's straight and normal skin crawl.

Romney with the help of Ryan will pick judges for the court so it looks like your agenda is coming to a close.
Have you considered a nice warm climate more suitable to your special hormone needs like Uganda?

Please take Mona and Rose with you.

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) Jul 22 dGo mneDad lyHo i... 71,943
News Del Rey Oaks Garden Center grand opening schedu... Jul 21 Kathi Buckley Smith 1
drugs Jul 16 JayJay 2
News Sex offender Tom Pollacci pleads not guilty to ... (Mar '09) Jul 15 martin5 360
City of seaside needs to replace more than PD T... Jul 10 fed up 1
Monterey Seafood Restaurant Celebrates its 26 Y... Jul 6 cafefina58 1
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Jun '15 ChaCha 17
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages