Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 7,479)

Showing posts 149,561 - 149,580 of200,323
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170903
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you assert that both couples are capable of procreation ? Capable of identical results, on their own, with no outside interference ?
Here's what immediately strikes down your messed up thought process.

Not all heterosexual couples can have kids.

Should we then consider them unable to marry?

BAM!!!!

Just one shot and I shot down your plane. How does it feel to be the loser?

LOL!!!!
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170904
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
However, sexual behavior is a completely different issue than race. The Loving couple was a heterosexual one. Why has the homosexual rights agenda co-opted and hijacked the civil rights agenda? Because they need to wrap themselves in the cloak of victimhood. The only way they can get mainstream America to overlook their basic flaws is to claim victim status. In modern America, the highest and grandest of all titles is that of "victim". Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. And, to be honest, people love others and commit to others all the time...we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
The 14th Amendment holds no sway a to what can be considered basic civil rights.
The right to marry an adult of one's choice appears to be all that.

You're a social fuckup friend. You actually think the nation should revolve itself around your "feelings" of other citizens. If that were the case me and your neighbors would have bought you a one way ticket to China some 21 years ago...LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170905
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!
YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170907
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to
heterosexuality?
What does that even mean?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170908
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
BAM!!!!
LOL!!!!
KABOOOM!!!!
YUK!YUK!YUK!!!!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170909
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that I am against you trying to get into the catfight, but to chide him for spelling, after the way you misuse simple words, like "site" (which should read "cite") and "peal"(which should read "peel") is adorable...He didn't actually call you a monkey (not that I am on his side, my scorn is Equal Opportunity).
Typos, that's all you have.
LOLSER.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170910
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, when one researches Loving V Va, one will discover that Loving V Va was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States, and that is all there is to it. Mis-interpretaion notwithstanding...
Install some seatbelts in your home furniture given with the advancement of gay marriage happening in each state you're up for a rocky ride.

LOL!
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170912
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that even mean?
It means "Hudson" is baiting you given he did not arrive at a point on his post.

The guy is a loser bar none.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170913
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
The 14th Amendment holds no sway a to what can be considered basic civil rights.
The right to marry an adult of one's choice appears to be all that.
You're a social fuckup friend. You actually think the nation should revolve itself around your "feelings" of other citizens. If that were the case me and your neighbors would have bought you a one way ticket to China some 21 years ago...LOL!!!
The 14th holds no sway? Oh no! I thought it held some sway.

He's wrong because he's a "social fuckup friend"?

Dan. What a dope!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170916
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...removed for space...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
However, sexual behavior is a completely different issue than race.
I don't base my argument on sexual behavior, but on gender.
R Hudson wrote:
The Loving couple was a heterosexual one. Why has the homosexual rights agenda co-opted and hijacked the civil rights agenda?
Civil rights are civil rights.
R Hudson wrote:
Because they need to wrap themselves in the cloak of victimhood. The only way they can get mainstream America to overlook their basic flaws is to claim victim status. In modern America, the highest and grandest of all titles is that of "victim". Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry.
And? If those laws violate the Constitution, they should be changed. That's what happened with Loving V VA.
R Hudson wrote:
The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human.
In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. And, to be honest, people love others and commit to others all the time...we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
I never use "love" in my argument.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170917
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Because they are a universally recognized, legitimate couple.
2) You have that backwards. You are a transvestite, trying to make his flaws acceptable.
3) Yes, I have, you are just ignoring them.
4) We've covered your desire to control the children of others, before, why not tell lililth to step back from her kid ? You'd get cut, remember ?
5) Meaningless drivel, dodging a bullet.
6) Children never benefit from being raised in broken and dysfunctional families.
7) I go on about about the children, because they are being brushed aside by you, and your ilk.
1) So would it seem a same sexed couple be.

2) It's your opinion she's a transvestite. Some may consider that fat thing you married the same so keep that in mind.

3) No one is ignoring anything...what upsets you is not everyone agrees.

4) It's only natural to lay out concern for the little kiddies of the world. Unfortunately for you and your ilk you think it better for kids to grow up in most often abusive foster care than in a loving adoptive gay family.

5) Your opinion.

6) No...children don'[t benefit from broken families nor do they benefit being raised in foster care or as orphans when there are options you seem to ignore.

7) You don't give a rat's ass about the children for if you did you'd rather see them grow up in a loving family than to live as unwanted orphans or in foster carwe so please liar...STFU.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170918
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
It means "Hudson" is baiting you given he did not arrive at a point on his post.
The guy is a loser bar none.
No kidding...
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170919
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
In your delusional state, you believe that to be evidence of equality ? You tell me about how that feels , to be a loser...
I've been there but it seems you've experienced it more recently than me...LOL!!!

So what else does not make heterosexual couples equal to same sexed couples?

Ya gotta think now....don't get an anuerysm.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170921
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the fuckup, and don't call me your friend. I am not. The nation is the master, not the servant. Shut the hell up. Stupid.
Err....we as a free peoples are supposed to determine the government.

Remember now....ever since breaking off of Mother England we no longer have a government as a "master".
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170922
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sh*t *p, st*pid.(God, even THAT gets censored)
Kleenex at Target will be on sale until 12/15/2012.

FYI
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170923
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it isn't all that I have, it is one of many corrections that you are in need of, You attempted to look clever, 2 days ago, trying to find fault with my use of "obfuscation", when you misuse and misspell much simpler word than mine. And you whine when your flaws are pointed out. Cute.
No one needs to use cleverness in speaking truth.

Yet another fact the Confucious would no doubt agree upon.
Roloes

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170925
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Just drop and run for cover.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170927
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Because they are a universally recognized, legitimate couple.
Ah, BS, I just pointed out a flaw in your "logic".
R Hudson wrote:
2) You have that backwards. You are a transvestite, trying to make his flaws acceptable.
You can't tell a woman from a man. Guess because you look in the mirror and can't tell a bigfoot from a human.
R Hudson wrote:
3) Yes, I have, you are just ignoring them.
More BS. You keep going on about gay couples raising children, and even though they do a fine job, that's not the issue. Gay marriage is.
R Hudson wrote:
4) We've covered your desire to control the children of others, before, why not tell lililth to step back from her kid ? You'd get cut, remember ?
Was that supposed to make sense? I have no desire to control children.
R Hudson wrote:
5) Meaningless drivel, dodging a bullet.
6) Children never benefit from being raised in broken and dysfunctional families.
Dodge.
R Hudson wrote:
7) I go on about about the children, because they are being brushed aside by you, and your ilk.
Rose's Law...
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170930
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
To your dimwitted self, the answer is missing. but the simple answer is, that is a question, that drives at the point that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equal at all. You are simply a fool that doesn't understand the flaws in your own attempts at reasoning away common sense. As I've said before, keep quiet child, the grownups are talking.
Specifically what are my flaws in reasoning?

That they don't agree with your ignorant opinions??

You gotta remember....just because you saw a zebra at the zoo doesn't mean your favorite donkey Ol' Bessie was fooling around with the dalmation 2 houses down the street. It's just your opinion.

And if you don't believe heterosexual couples and same sexed couples are "not equal at all" then you need to provide specifics because to me at least that stgatement is akin to claiming both mars and the moon are not planets in tghat you're a God damned mess that couldn't understand the truth of things if it were tattooed on your fat forehead.

LOL!!!
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170931
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
Later, kids, I'll be back tomorrow.
pssssssst....

....pssssssssst..

..no one cares.

FYI.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 149,561 - 149,580 of200,323
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Palm Springs Discussions

Search the Palm Springs Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 1 hr Ocean 7,835
Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) 5 hr AMan 149
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 10 hr Shellys Husband is Strong 635
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Tue Ronald 2,251
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Mon Racjei 4,885
desert hot springs, ca. unkept yards Jul 19 Ted 1
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Jul 17 Alice 120
•••

Excessive Heat Warning for Riverside County was issued at July 23 at 2:28PM PDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palm Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Springs
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••