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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#196760 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you seriously think we are going to a one party system?
Damn, you're still one of the stupidest asshats on Topix. Um, dear, if a party splits, that would infer MORE parties, not less you moron.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The republican party is going to fade away then it will be happy happy pure democrat la la land?
Again, your stupidity shines through. No one, other than you, is discussing a one party, or purely democrat.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dream on fool! Look at history.
We have. We've discussed history numerous times. Demonstrating how those that side against the equality of others they don't like, based soley on characteristics they don't share, are always on the losing side of it. Why don't YOU try looking at history fool.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196761 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're making a fool out of yourself again. Desperately trying to hand me my ass is a whole different thing than actually doing it. Your weak attempts are ridiculous and just showcase your desperation.
Relax fruitloops. You're just another troll. And not a very good one being that you are so stupid.
Relax why u mad bro?

“STOP THE SPREAD OF LIES”

Since: Jun 13

JEWS ARE GOD'S CHOSEN ONES

#196762 Jun 19, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear god.... yet another clueless dumbass.... Homosexuality isn't abnormal, you dolt. geeeeeeeeeeeez.....
Do you think that men who have sex with same sex adult donkeys are abnormal? GEEEEEEEEEZ.......If not, please explain.

Do you think that lesbians who have anal sex with men are abnormal?

I am simply hoping to discover your definition of abnormal.
Stardaddard

Covina, CA

#196763 Jun 19, 2013
A quick and fast / little time to waste:

Ex-Communist Party of China official executed for child rapes, 2013.

Quick and easy, paperwork kept low as possible.
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196764 Jun 19, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, you're still one of the stupidest asshats on Topix. Um, dear, if a party splits, that would infer MORE parties, not less you moron.
He meant less of a viable Party, Brainiac.

How stupid can you polyp bangers be?
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196768 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Jonah1 is so angry he can't see straight. Wait'll you get a load of this dumb jackass! You're in for a real treat.
Today has been something else. It's like the Stupid Bus just rolled in.

GLAAD must have promised them some free AIDS tests?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196769 Jun 19, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
We have. We've discussed history numerous times. Demonstrating how those that side against the equality of others they don't like, based soley on characteristics they don't share, are always on the losing side of it. Why don't YOU try looking at history fool.
Why don't you try looking at biology, fool.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196772 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You have tried that "why you mad" schtick about 20 times now and it has not worked once.
Trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is just another example of your stupidity.
P.S. Why you mad?
P.P.S. Jizzy, you are a buffoon.
Hush now, don't you cry.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196773 Jun 19, 2013
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/351478/pri...

Marriage, Democracy, and the Court
It’s unconstitutional for activist judges to settle the marriage debate.
By Ryan T. Anderson
A hallmark of democratic self-government is that the people should discuss, debate, and vote on important policy matters. And in America their votes should count, except when they clearly violate the people’s more settled will as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Where the Constitution is silent, the task of a conscientious judge is to respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials.

That’s what’s at stake in the two marriage cases on which the Supreme Court is expected to rule within the next week or so.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that “a solid majority of Americans opposes a broad national right to same-sex marriage.” Americans do not want the Supreme Court to redefine marriage for the entire nation.

And earlier this week, the Pew Research Center reported that media coverage has been overwhelmingly biased, by a factor of five to one, in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Pew also found that ordinary Americans taking to social-media sites such as Twitter have been split more or less evenly.

That’s the reality of the discussion right now in America: We’re in the middle of a debate, with neither side’s position “inevitable.” This discussion is healthy for our democratic republic. And it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to shut down

Whatever your views on the policy merits of redefining marriage, all Americans should be loud and clear on this: Activist courts shouldn’t silence the voices and votes of citizens. There is nothing in the text, history, logic, or structure of the Constitution that requires the redefinition of marriage.

So what are these two cases before the Supreme Court? And what’s at stake?

One case concerns DOMA, which was passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. DOMA defined marriage for purposes of federal law, making explicit what was understood at the time of our country’s founding — that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Some have argued that Congress lacks authority to make marriage policy for federal purposes and that it has to accept whatever definition of marriage the states come up with. But this view gets our Constitution and federalism wrong. Just as the states have constitutional authority to make state policy about marriage, so too Congress may pass a federal statute defining a term for federal programs created by federal law. Indeed, Congress has legislated legitimately on marriage more than 1,100 times. DOMA only made clear that Congress meant one man and one woman when it used the words “marriage” and “spouse.”

Some try to argue that what really is unconstitutional isn’t Congress making this law, but anyone’s making a law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That view is at the center of the other marriage case before the high court, concerning California’s Proposition 8.

Prop 8 is a state constitutional amendment approved by California voters in 2008; it defines marriage for state purposes as the union of one man and one woman. This case provides the Supreme Court with the opportunity to reject faulty arguments that laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman violate the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Equality demands that we treat in the same way things that are the same. But a same-sex relationship is fundamentally different from a marriage. No same-sex union can produce a child. And no same-sex relationship can provide a child with a mother and a father.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196774 Jun 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ node/351478/print?utm_source=R TA+NRO+Marriage&utm_campai gn=winstorg&utm_medium=ema il
Marriage, Democracy, and the Court
It’s unconstitutional for activist judges to settle the marriage debate.
By Ryan T. Anderson
And earlier this week, the Pew Research Center reported that media
Equality demands that we treat in the same way things that are the same. But a same-sex relationship is fundamentally different from a marriage. No same-sex union can produce a child. And no same-sex relationship can provide a child with a mother and a father.
"A hallmark of democratic self-government is that the people should discuss, debate, and vote on important policy matters. And in America their votes should count, except when they clearly violate the people’s more settled will as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Where the Constitution is silent, the task of a conscientious judge is to respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials.
That’s what’s at stake in the two marriage cases on which the Supreme Court is expected to rule within the next week or so.
A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that “a solid majority of Americans opposes a broad national right to same-sex marriage.” Americans do not want the Supreme Court to redefine marriage for the entire nation.


When did we as voters start voting on laws?
sheesh

Millington, MD

#196775 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You tried to shift the blame for Obama's spying on fellow Americans to Cheney.
Don't try to back paddle out of it now! Stand behind your spin.
I didn't try to shift anything. I pointed out the hypocrisy that lives in all the criticism of Obama's policies that steadfastly comes from republicans, especially when they mirror their own desires. You just put your own spin on what I said. I'll go one step further and make the observation that anyone, right or left, who cannot recognize that their party has a lot of crazy ideas is full of shxt.
Zoro

Rock Island, IL

#196776 Jun 19, 2013

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196777 Jun 19, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
"A hallmark of democratic self-government is that the people should discuss, debate, and vote on important policy matters. And in America their votes should count, except when they clearly violate the people’s more settled will as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Where the Constitution is silent, the task of a conscientious judge is to respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials.
That’s what’s at stake in the two marriage cases on which the Supreme Court is expected to rule within the next week or so.
A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that “a solid majority of Americans opposes a broad national right to same-sex marriage.” Americans do not want the Supreme Court to redefine marriage for the entire nation.
When did we as voters start voting on laws?
Are u unfamiliar with various state propositions that are put on the ballots at election time, like prop 22, and prop 8?
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196778 Jun 19, 2013
I wouldn't trust the Media if they said the sun rises in the morning. Long ago they proved to be pinko activists. Seriously, when's the last time they stuck with the 5 W's and nothing else.

They played their final hand after the attacks of 2001. It wasn't one month(!) later they issued their "Diversity" standards, which was cover for appeasement and collaboration.

http://www.spj.org/divguidelines.asp

They truly are the Fifth Column.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#196779 Jun 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are mating dances, happens homosexually in animals too, thank you for making my point :)
Not at all, I actually know what I am talking about
here we go again comparing homosexually to animals. Some males in the animal world give birth, will that be the new norm too?
Permanbulator

Covina, CA

#196781 Jun 19, 2013
Who done it?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196782 Jun 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your opinion ( which counts for nothing ) that they are imposter relationships, I have more respect for their marriages than I have for your fearful little marriage.
The point is, that marriage is a legal contract, anything more than that is in the mind of those who marry. My own marriage means more to me than just the legal contract, I know others who think less of theirs. But my opinion of theirs is meaningless, just as your opinion of same sex marriages is meaningless.
That ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior is no opinion.

You may want to dumb down marriage to a 'committed relationship of two people', but other than establishing an immediate discriminatory relationship, it will still not equate to marriage. Reality won't let it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196783 Jun 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been marching on a path towards equality and freedom since the American Revolution.
Freedom and equality is like the mythical monster, Hydra. Each time you cut off one head, two more grow back in its place.
Each time we feel that we've established freedom and equality for a particular group in this country, we see another group (or groups) of people who do not have access to certain rights that others take for granted.
You say that the benefits of marriage were not intended for gays. I say they were. They've been intended for gays since the foundation of this country.
However, it has taken over two-centuries for society to recognize this oversight. That's why you're seeing states pass laws to level the playing field for gays. That's why we're fighting in the courts to level the playing field. That's why we're educating the public about why the we need to level the playing field.
It will be level eventually. As you look around our country and at other countries, you can clearly see that the handwriting is on the wall. Equality WILL happen.
It hasn't been an easy process. Major change in ideology is never easy. There will be growing pains.
But that does not deter us from fighting for our rights.
You have freedom already.

However, ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointless duplicate gendered half of marriage. An appendage on the ass of a dog you call a leg.
laughing man

Luton, UK

#196784 Jun 19, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
When did we as voters start voting on laws?
Partly to stem the actions of your activist assclowns of the 6th Circus.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196785 Jun 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have freedom already.
However, ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointless duplicate gendered half of marriage. An appendage on the ass of a dog you call a leg.
Ohhh... Someone's getting testy.

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
facetime? (gay guys only) (Jul '11) Jun 22 Justin 21
News Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) Jun 17 Icurn2000 158
Beware of Kenn Grey Jun 12 Philanthropic soc... 1
News Ap Photos: Highlights of the 2016 race for the ... Jun 5 TRUMP YES 3
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Jun 2 Fucklove88 15
Local Politics Do you approve of Yvonne Parks as Mayor Pro-Tem? (Aug '12) May '16 Rocky 2
Complaint CATHEDRAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (Jan '08) May '16 mimic lopes 51
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages