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.

Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191641 May 9, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
As you are a red-neck fool, you exhibit traits of both groups.
Yes, I'm sure that's very clever, where you come from. Please sit down.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191642 May 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
every person that commits is commiting a crime
every person that drives over the speed limit is commiting a crime
it is a wide range, donít assume too much
My desire to secure our borders has nothing whatsoever to do with color, culture, race, of food preference. Notice our largest border is the least secure, the one to the north
Agreed.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191644 May 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
no claim, I have seen doezns of people here do it, nothing to it
But, sir, sidestepping is not the same "wiping the floor'.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191645 May 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You can take your argument up with the state of California that currently legally recognizes 18,000 same sex marriages. But I expect prop 8 will be overturned before you can get a hearing to challenge them, which will make your effort to have them not recognize those marriages moot.
But right now, they do,
California 18,000
Rock Hudson zip
But then, these words, right here: "But right now, they do," grant validity to these words, right here: "So, these rights were not always present for the gays, making my statement correct. These "rights" have been granted, then removed again. now, it is in flux.". It's all about the context of the timeline. Not always means that they had to have been granted, at a time when it was not legal. Making me correct. No "rights" have been denied, they were wrongly bestowed. That is the only wrong going on, here. The 18,000 need to be annulled. Then, we'll be back on track. Where we belong.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191646 May 9, 2013
And, by the way, Chongo, in case you missed this on the other forum...

how 'homophobic' are you? Weigh your attitudes and beliefs about homosexuals on the Homophobia Scale (below) and see how you rank.

39 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."
From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191647 May 9, 2013
So, Chongo, there's that...
Wish there was an "Are You A Hater?" quiz, for you to take... You'd score abysmally.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191648 May 9, 2013
However, this does nothing to lessen my stance that SSM is wrong.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191649 May 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I found him in my garage once, but I called the cops and had him arrested for trespassing, He was hiding behind the water heater
That's strange that you saw him yet you insist he is imaginary. Maybe you should have your head examined.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191650 May 9, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Why you mad bro? Flat tire on your wheel chair? What is it? VA cut you loose? No cash to buy MD20/20? Hey sell your sperm, crap, you're dried out. Oh well you still have your health.
Why do you beat your wife? Why do you stalk me? Why are you obsessed with me? Why do you cruise the gay threads? What does your wife do while you cruise the gay threads?

Why didn't you stay in school? Why are you stupid? Why can't you spell?

Oh Jizzy! I have a thousand questions just like you!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191651 May 9, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, sir, sidestepping is not the same "wiping the floor'.
I'd ask Big D to list these "dozens of people" who have "wiped the floor" with me, but why bother, everyone knows he is a liar and they don't exist.

Big D gets desperate and then he gets stupid and starts lying.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191652 May 9, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, I don't fear it, I just have the ability to recognize which change is beneficial, and which change is not.
So far I haven't seen where you've talked about how same-sex marriage would be harmful. You've only said that you're a "traditionalist", which implies a fear of change.

Can you admit that same-sex marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their families?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191653 May 9, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not a "right", it's a privilege. Men and women can all do the same things in America. We all have the same rights, enumerated in the Constitution. Marriage isn't mentioned. At all. It just isn't. It's not listed as a right. Look for it. It isn't there. Period. What MORE do you need to be told? IT'S NOT THERE!
Well, maybe it should be in the Constitution. Maybe the founding fathers didn't believe that it needed to be listed--believed that it was just a "given" that people have the right to marry.

I can think of many things that aren't in the Constitution. Compulsory education is not a right, yet there are various public systems that have created it. In fact, not only is it a "right", but it is mandatory. We have truant officers that will force kids and their parents to engage in education, whether they want to or not.

We don't have the Constitutional right to vote, but we have the constitutional right to be protected from not being allowed to vote based on race, sex, and age.

Does every action that we consider to be the bedrock of freedom have to be listed in the Constitution?

I don't think so.

You keep trying to make this a Constitutional argument. It's not. It is about basic human rights that SHOULD be available to tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of the U.S.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191654 May 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I haven't seen where you've talked about how same-sex marriage would be harmful. You've only said that you're a "traditionalist", which implies a fear of change.
Can you admit that same-sex marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their families?
Sure. But I'd also point out that granting amnesty to the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens would benefit them, and their families, too. Doesn't make it right, however.
Clay

El Centro, CA

#191655 May 9, 2013
Excellent point and good observation on your part.It seems these sodomite judges think we cannot vote something up or down, the Judge has to step in and nullify the wishes of the majority of the citizens of California. So that's 1 man equals 38,041,430 citizen votes. A very valid question too, Why should I vote, when 1 man is going to take it away. A wasted vote on a very important issue in this state of sodomites.
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????

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191656 May 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If two men enter into a marriage, they are still are men according to the law.
If two women enter into a marriage, they are still are men according to the law.
Not in 32 states. The point is men are treated like men, and women like women. Marriage, in those 32 states is a union of one man and one woman, regardless of orientation.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191657 May 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe it should be in the Constitution. Maybe the founding fathers didn't believe that it needed to be listed--believed that it was just a "given" that people have the right to marry.
I can think of many things that aren't in the Constitution. Compulsory education is not a right, yet there are various public systems that have created it. In fact, not only is it a "right", but it is mandatory. We have truant officers that will force kids and their parents to engage in education, whether they want to or not.
We don't have the Constitutional right to vote, but we have the constitutional right to be protected from not being allowed to vote based on race, sex, and age.
Does every action that we consider to be the bedrock of freedom have to be listed in the Constitution?
I don't think so.
You keep trying to make this a Constitutional argument. It's not. It is about basic human rights that SHOULD be available to tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of the U.S.
This "Maybe the founding fathers didn't believe that it needed to be listed--believed that it was just a "given" that people have the right to marry." is weak, IMHO. They did not list marriage. No "should've's" about it. But, they did leave it up to the states to determine marriage laws. There are a lot of things that we take for granted that are not in the Constitution.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191658 May 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I haven't seen where you've talked about how same-sex marriage would be harmful. You've only said that you're a "traditionalist", which implies a fear of change.
Can you admit that same-sex marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their families?
What benefits do you speak of, please be specific? Would such benefits provide justification for legal plural marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191659 May 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe it should be in the Constitution. Maybe the founding fathers didn't believe that it needed to be listed--believed that it was just a "given" that people have the right to marry.
Does the "right to marry" only exist if the state legally recognizes marriage? If people marry according to the dictates of their religion, but seek, nor receive state recognition, did they still exercise their right to marry?
You keep trying to make this a Constitutional argument. It's not. It is about basic human rights that SHOULD be available to tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of the U.S.
It is, in all fifty states.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191660 May 9, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But then, these words, right here: "But right now, they do," grant validity to these words, right here: "So, these rights were not always present for the gays, making my statement correct. These "rights" have been granted, then removed again. now, it is in flux.". It's all about the context of the timeline. Not always means that they had to have been granted, at a time when it was not legal. Making me correct. No "rights" have been denied, they were wrongly bestowed. That is the only wrong going on, here. The 18,000 need to be annulled. Then, we'll be back on track. Where we belong.
Yes, they do, and have since they were married here, and still will be even if prop 8 is upheld, I know you canít comprehend that part... takes a little education.

No they will not force the annulment of 18,000 marriages... that will not happen. I can imagine the lawsuits

Did you want to make a wager?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191661 May 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they do, and have since they were married here, and still will be even if prop 8 is upheld, I know you canít comprehend that part... takes a little education.
No they will not force the annulment of 18,000 marriages... that will not happen. I can imagine the lawsuits
Did you want to make a wager?
So what does your wife do while you cruise the gay threads Big D?

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