Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201854 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.

Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189424 Apr 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
What he needs to do is bring forward the legally married poly group that was harmed by Prop 8
Then he would have a case, that they were affected by it
Of course, there isnt any
And, you think to be clever, with that? Let's also bring forth the SSSB abortion statistics, shall we?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189425 Apr 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Try again to what? To tell an idiot that polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage?
I did that 50 times. The idiot didn't listen 50 times. He doesn't get it. He's stupid.
Oh! You're that idiot. Woops.
Please keep track of your idiots. Thank you.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189426 Apr 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
in your opinion. not so much, apparantly by the other posters in this thread.
aren't you the one that posted earlier today about if 2 or 3 of your friends told you something about yourself, then it's probably true and you need to think about what you're doing?
pal, we're way over the "2 or 3" number in this regards.....
Perhaps, but, you don't count. You're all idiots.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189427 Apr 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a poor little moron that doesn’t even understand the arguments being presented in court.
No one really expects prop 8 to be overturned in such a way as to affect other states, there are those that hope for that but the chances are incredibly slim.
This is a California only ( for now ) issue
It is a fact that there are 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California right now.
You honestly don’t think the lawyers are smart enough to bring up the equal rights issues that some same sex marriage couples are being treated unequal to other same sex couples?
Of course they are, the lawyers are a whole lot smarter than you are.
It doesn’t need to extend to the greater question, that is already answered, there are 18,000 legally married couples in California right now, not an opinion, a fact.
The question is why are other same sex couples not afforded the same equal rights.:)
If you didn’t know before you might as well know now... that is why Prop 8 is going down.
OK, wise guy. All those slave owners were legally allowed to own slaves, why am I being discriminated against? Where's my equality with all those guys? If it was right then, why not repeat it now?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189428 Apr 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
i am wondering, though. if prop 8 falls, even just in CA, then what about the laws in other states banning same sex marriage? wouldn't that open the door to other lawsuits within those states? and if doma falls (as expected), then that would affect in some measure those laws as well.
i think, just my opinion here, that with both prop 8 and doma falling, then it's just a matter of time before all the other states' laws are lost causes as well. it may take time, but, with some patience and some money, all things are possible.
what do you think?
Not! You moron. Each state is allowed to make its own laws. No state is required to follow another states example.
Awkward.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189430 Apr 19, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Please keep track of your idiots. Thank you.
Sorry. There are so many. But Big D is their leader. That dope gets on my last nerve.

He acts like someone died and put him in charge.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189431 Apr 19, 2013
UrObsessedWithGayMarriage wrote:
U losers do realize that whoever stops responding is the more mature person right? U all need to get a life...especially if you're not even gay, why r u so obsessed w gay marriage....YOU'RE ALL GAY IF U ASK ME. Have fun OBSESSING over gay marriage
#Obsessed
#Obsessing
#Obsession
#GayMarriage
#LosersHangout
Told you you'd be back. Why do you want to interfere with a perfectly good hate-fest?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189432 Apr 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Atta boy Frankie, 11 hours of posting non stop stupidity. You need to get a life.
Like yours? Hell no! No thanks. Got my own and I like it. Glad that bothers you "sugar nipples".

Remember when you used to call me sugar nipples Jizzy? What happened?
Figured out it was stupid?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189433 Apr 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Atta boy Frankie, 11 hours of posting non stop stupidity. You need to get a life.
Jizzy stops by and with an air of superiority, adds his stupidity.

You can't make this stuff up! I love this thread.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189434 Apr 19, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey giblets for brains, is this the only topix thread? Nope, there are numerous ones. I suspect you have seen them and offered your limited wisdom in a few. You probably masturbate furiously waiting for someone to reply to your drivel. Just be sure you clean up afterwards. You wouldn't want your mommy slipping in your spooge when she brings your milk & cookies down to the basement.
BTW, I'm glad you finally got the courage to admit that you're gay.
ROFLMAO!!! Look at you, now. Street fighting it, like some of us others...
:-D You go, buddy!

...Loving it.....LOL
WOW

Evansville, IN

#189435 Apr 19, 2013
GAYS SICK PERIOD!I DONT THINK THAT JUDGE KNOWS WHAT HE HAS DONE AGAINST MARRIAGE.
guest

Lampasas, TX

#189437 Apr 19, 2013
Fhudcjji cvpfv
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189438 Apr 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
This time, stupid, take notes.
What you are saying is like saying everybody had the right to marry someone of the same race before Loving v VA. The problem was the "same race" is different for people of different races, so there was an equal rights issue.
And the "opposite sex" is different for people of different genders, so we have an equal right issue.
Listen up,$hyte-for-br@ins. Loving V Virginia was not a gender-based argument. Never was, never will be. Got it? Here, look...."Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...

Does it mention gender? NO!!!

"Bloomberg Law

Citation. 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 1967 U.S. 1082.

Brief Fact Summary. The state of Virginia enacted laws making it a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or the reverse. The constitutionality of the statutes was called into question.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Restricting the freedom to marry solely on the basis of race violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
Content
Facts. The state of Virginia enacted laws making it a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or a black person to intermarry with a white person. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the statutes served the legitimate state purpose of preserving the “racial integrity” of its citizens. The State argued that because its miscegenation statutes punished both white and black participants in an interracial marriage equally, they cannot be said to constitute invidious discrimination based on race and, therefore, the statutes commanded mere rational basis review.

Issue. Was rational basis the proper standard of review by which to evaluate the constitutionality of the statutes?
Were the Virginia miscegenation statutes constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause?"

Does it mention gender? NO!!!

From: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constituti...

"Bishop’s authoritative 1852 treatise on the law of marriage explained that “it has always... been deemed requisite to the entire validity of every marriage ... that the parties should be of different sex,” and that “[m]arriage between two persons of one sex could have no validity.” Pet.Br.7. And Davis, writing in 1985, said that “true marriage”is,
inter alia
, a “heterosexual relationship in which reproduction and child care are assumed.” CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE
1, 6-7. But it is certainly true that most historical authorities did not address the idea of marriage between persons of the same sex. There can be no doubt, however, that if they had, they would have said the same thing. After all, they were discussing “marriage,” a gendered term whose meaning was unambiguous and known to all. It meant, as Black-stone said, the relationship between “husband and wife,” Pet.Br.33, also gendered terms whose meanings were unambiguous and known to all. The idea of a“same-sex marriage” was, literally, contradictio interminis to these authorities, and they would have thought it no more necessary to say that such a marriage is not possible than to say that a female husband or male wife is not possible."

From: http://www.scribd.com/doc/131248871/Perry-Pro...

Thanks to AKPilot, for the link to that...
So....Um....Chongo, Loving V Virginia does not cover you, here..
:-D
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189439 Apr 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Does "anal retentive" have a hyphen?
No, it has an underscore, right there, between "Rose" and NoHo"
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189440 Apr 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Monster, the Constitution says all persons should get equal protection.
Speaking of impostor, what are you?
And you have both sets of sex genes, right? So, if our right to marry depends on our sex genes, should you be allowed to marry?
Protection is not legal recognition of imposter relationships. Little detail.
If you could think, we'd be amused, a little bit more.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189441 Apr 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you believe in a god who would have made a monster like you?
LOL!
Yeah, and we know that you don't believe in a god who put pubic hair on your head, right?
"Plaintiffs’ reading of this Court’s marriage cases is plainly wrong. They were, after all, about “marriage,” a term that has always meant “the union for life of one man and one woman.”
Murphy v. Ramsey,114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885)."
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189442 Apr 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I say Rose_NoHo is an idiot. I have heard many people say this.
Therefore Rose_NoHo is an idiot.
I agree. And, my arrogance makes me count as two. So, that's three, so far that think that Chongo is an idiot.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189443 Apr 19, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Waaaa. My pu..y hurts. Oh poor you, everyone is against you. It’s a conspiracy. It’s has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are an ignorant hater and a boob. Oh, no, it’s everyone else making your life such a sad existence. Roflmao at you. You haters have such thin skin.
Are you kidding? It's you b!otches who have the thin skin. Look at VV. and, it's you who have had us banned, not the other way around..Talk about spin....
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189444 Apr 19, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. He’s just a lonely old hater.
It's you who calls women "gashes". Talk about a hater...Why don't you tell Chongo that he/she/it can't come to your house, because you consider him/her/it a "gash"?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189445 Apr 19, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You don’t have any “skin in the game”. You’re just a lonely old hater seeking attention.
We don't need to have any, b!tch.

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 30 ChaCha 17
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages