Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,980

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.

Full Story

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#165555 Oct 28, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't decide what the rules are. Just so' you know.
I didn't decide that Appealing to tradition and using non sequiturs are logical fallacies.
R Hudson wrote:
And protection isn't the same as extra rights, just so's you know that, too.
How so? Look at Loving v VA
Next.
R Hudson wrote:
<
And it isn't a separate issue, it is part of the whole issue, as is gay indoc in schools.
Rose's Law...
Look, gay couples can and do raise kids now without marriage. You don't have to be married in order to adopt. You don't have to be married to raise a kid from a previous relationship. And you can marry and not raise kids. Separate issues. Duh.
And the "indoc" stuff is pure BS.
R Hudson wrote:
Your irrational spouting of your made up law does nothing to deter our guardianship of our children.
All laws are made up.
And like other such laws, it's a codification of observations.
Gay marriage won't effect the guardianship of your rug rats.
R Hudson wrote:
You'll be waiting forever, as you have already been given some, and are choosing to ignore them.
No, I said a *rational* reason. Not irrelevant crap.
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. It's a non issue! Do you have a problem with sterile people getting married? You can raise children without marriage. Again, give us a rational reason Adam and Steve should not be allowed to marry.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#165556 Oct 28, 2012
Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
How interesting that "all" of you showed up here out of the blue at the exact same time. I though that trolls where solitary creatures. Better hurry on back to the gay/lesbian cafe, the combination "straight guys only" circle jerk/STOP SSM rally is starting in 15 minutes!
Peaches bought a gallon of pickled pigs feet and a 12 pack of Milwaukee's Best but she wants to remind Raul to stop off at the drug store and pick up some condoms.
Why are you a homophobe?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#165557 Oct 28, 2012
Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
How interesting that "all" of you showed up here out of the blue at the exact same time. I though that trolls where solitary creatures. Better hurry on back to the gay/lesbian cafe, the combination "straight guys only" circle jerk/STOP SSM rally is starting in 15 minutes!
Peaches bought a gallon of pickled pigs feet and a 12 pack of Milwaukee's Best but she wants to remind Raul to stop off at the drug store and pick up some condoms.
You come here, pretend you support gay rights and then you proceed to spew your rabid homophobia and obvious disdain for gays. What's up with that toots?

You're psycho. And boring.

Since: Oct 12

Marietta, OH

#165558 Oct 28, 2012
Jess wrote:
Woohoo!!
oh yeah?
Winston Smith

Waldorf, MD

#165559 Oct 28, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But you forgot to point to your own blatherings, so I suspect bias and spin...
The difference being you don't find the hourly updates from me. You really don't have a life do you?
used slogans for sale

Pulaski, TN

#165560 Oct 28, 2012
Git yer slogans here!!!!

Mix and match!!!!

Any way you wanna!!!!

"homophobe"

"bigot"

"hater"

"racist"

"misogynist"

"civil rights"

"troll"

Only a penny each! What a bargain!!!!

Buy ten or more and we'll throw in "come out of the closet" for free!!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#165561 Oct 28, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
The insane tend to laugh a lot.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
Suddenly you're TTAG again.
Sorry, I forgot my idiot to English decoder ring.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Obviously, it doesn't have to be "consistent".
It would be if what you claim is true, but since it is a lie you make your own rules.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you post a link to my post?
Are you claiming you didn't make the post now?

Just want to add on to the lies don't you?
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

Because you are an obsessive nut case.
Are you looking in the mirror again?
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You are such a joke! Again, dummy, it was a copy/paste mistake, basically a typo. I admitted my mistake, but you are going on and on like you are "Monk" or something, and this is some federal case.
I understand you don't want people to think you are as stupid as R Hudson. No need to worry, again, I admitted the mistake. Get over yourself.
You are full of sh%%.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I made what amounts to a typo. It's not like you haven't made MANY of them.
I bet you snort when you laugh...
"I bet you snort when you laugh"

Are you 5?

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#165562 Oct 28, 2012
Raul wrote:
<quoted text>
You going through the drive-thru, or you sittin' inside at McDonalds?
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

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#165563 Oct 28, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you fundies such racists?
Which race to I hate Rose?

This should be good considering you have no idea what race I am.
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...

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr Eric 69,427
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 6 hr surfboards 7,957
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles 18 hr fancy 3
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 22 hr theos 2,276
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sat free for all 5,081
Dennis W (Veeser) from Krakow Wi. Fri Mia 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
•••
•••
•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••