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.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182113 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the children are too young to have children. And too irresponsible.
You're grasping at straws.
I often specify adults for just this reason. Jackasses like you. There's a class action suit against me for neglecting to specify it this time, Get in on it!
Come on Frank, having children is not a requirement in marriage. Why are you grasping at straws??
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182115 Mar 1, 2013
People he is either too stupid to understand, or too stubborn to admit how obviously wrong he is no matter how many point it out in how many different ways
sanford

Covina, CA

#182116 Mar 1, 2013
D stands for DUMMY
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182117 Mar 1, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Racial slur reported.
Who, me ?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182118 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, they wanted to eliminate the gender part of prop 8 but keep the number part. They wanted to make damn sure repealing it didn't possibly legalize poly or make it easier to legalize poly.
Proves my point. Prop 8 mentions polygamy, The courts decision mentions polygamy.
Yeah because Prop 8 funded out of Utah was all about banning polygamy in California, Same sex marriage just got in the way, an unintended consequence. But they used that consequence in their advertisements to trick people into thinking it was about Same Sex Marriage

( people are staring at me, I am laughing so hard typing that )
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182119 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
If nobody else will answer this, then I will:
Our right to limit marriage to one person is backed by the fact that no stigma in our psyche rationally provokes us to want to mate with more than one person. Maybe on a conscious level that may seem like the case sometimes, but it doesn't resonate subconsciously, or at least has not yet been shown to by psychologists.
Which is exactly the opposite case for homosexuality. Scientists, biologists, psychologists - they've all reached the same conclusion regarding this. When it's looked at in an objective, unbiased light, any experienced practician can see the trend: homosexuality is just as genetic as taste buds. The desire to commit bigamy is not.
Gay relationships are not the equivalent of bigamy and shouldn't be equated as such.
I don't know how you could have invented such claptrap. "Stigma" ? You cannot be serious. Stigma is shame attached to something. Such as the gays can well attest to. To use that word in this context is irrational, to say the least. Stigma cannot be used in this way. Stigma is something that describes taboos, and if anyone has the right to enact taboos, then the heterosexuals have the right to deny the homosexuals in exactly the same way. You are using mighty big words to describe an invalid notion. Stigma is not used to describe any reasoning that we use to decide upon our mating choices. Our right to limit marriage to one person is backed by the archaic Christian tenets. Nothing more. And since we have, apparently, decided to throw religion to the wind, we have no choice but to allow polygamy in the same legislation that is being used to allow SSM. Anything else is a matter of obfuscation. "Allow this, but deny that." ? If the gays can misappropriate marriage to lay claim to governmental rights that are provided to help valid families, then so can polygamists.

Scientists, biologists, psychologists have all provided enough data to support either side, let's not make false claims that SSM is approved of by all, it is not. Downs Syndrome is also as genetic as the taste buds, but also not to be desired. Also aberrational.

Gay relationships are not the equivalent of heterosexuality and shouldn't be equated as such.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182120 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, which side of this argument are you on again? The anti-equality one?
Yea, the pro-equality guy here is quite the "bigot", eh?
No, it's you "anti-equality" gays that are the bigots. You wish to have your choices validated, but refuse to admit the validity of any other ones.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182121 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
You bet, buddy.
History has shown this: given enough momentum, a rights-activism movement in America cannot be stopped (i.e. racial equality, gender equality, the American revolution...)
Everyone has a purpose. That's what sets the two sides of this debate apart; one side's extreme is shown to consistently show more faith in human capability than the other.
And it ain't your side, if I may resort to briefly using Texan slang.
Human capability has nothing, at all, to do with SSM. More balderdash. This is a classic non sequitur. "Capability" ? We don't care what you are capable of, just how we define marriage. Go be capable. Don't ask us to accept SSM. The one has nothing to do with the other. Except to highlight how a national agenda can be controlled through infiltration.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182122 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Not, you remind me of the Black Knight. Go ahead and google it.
Naw, you go ahead with that.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182123 Mar 1, 2013
not really too wrote:
<quoted text>I want 8 wives, all under the age of 15. Why are you trying to diminish my marriage rights?
We have laws against that, but you knew that. This would make you a pedophile. Are you a pedophile ? Or are you simply trying to apply a laughably silly analogy ?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182124 Mar 1, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Human capability has nothing, at all, to do with SSM. More balderdash. This is a classic non sequitur. "Capability" ? We don't care what you are capable of, just how we define marriage. Go be capable. Don't ask us to accept SSM. The one has nothing to do with the other. Except to highlight how a national agenda can be controlled through infiltration.
Well you are in for a sad day shortly here.

I was only a week ago under the opinion that the Supreme court ruling would only affect California.

But events this week, not only the white house, but over 200 major business petitioning the supreme court showing how acceptance of Same Sex marriage across all 50 states has become a business imperative for them to be able to hire, retain, and transfer the best people for a job, without interference with different states having different rules with regards to their legally married same sex employees.

The outcome in a couple of months here is pretty darn clear, over 100 Republican leaders are now on the same bandwagon calling for the federal legalization of Same sex marriage.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182125 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>OH I see you only want polygamy legal in California. You want to talk about marriage equality don't you?
In June 2005, Jeffs was charged with sexual assault on a minor and with conspiracy to commit sexual misconduct with a minor for allegedly arranging, in April 2001, a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old first cousin, Allen. The girl, Elissa Wall (then only known as "Jane Doe IV") testified that she begged "Uncle Rulon" to let her wait until she was older, or choose another man for her. Rulon Jeffs was apparently "sympathetic", but Warren Jeffs was not, and she was forced to go through with the marriage. The 14-year-old alleged that her new husband raped her repeatedly and that she repeatedly miscarried
It looks like age was not a problem in this polygamous marriage.
I'm noticing the pattern of you defending pedophiles. Are you a pedophile ?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182126 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
But it isn't your decision what another couple wants to do, is it?
First, I wasn't making a 'decision', I was stating facts. You have no counter to those, so you did a slimy, devious diversion. Why would a legitimate cause need to do that?

Second, you insinuate that something as momentus as imposing a counterfeit relationship on the fundamental relationship of society will have no effect. Already obviously silly stupid.

Smirk.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182127 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Come on Frank, having children is not a requirement in marriage. Why are you grasping at straws??
You really ARE a pedophile, aren't you ?
PetRocks

Covina, CA

#182128 Mar 1, 2013
Who said poster-D was stupid as a rock?

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182129 Mar 1, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
We have laws against that, but you knew that. This would make you a pedophile. Are you a pedophile ? Or are you simply trying to apply a laughably silly analogy ?
Like the laws on Polygamy?? OH my snap
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182130 Mar 1, 2013
To use criminals in a vain attempt to draw parallels to polygamous marriages, while frail in and of itself, is nothing short of the EXACT same demonizing tactics that have been declared unfair by the gays, when they had to defend against the EXACT same charges. Witness the duality of this philosophy. It was patently wrong when the gays had to hear this, but now this ass-puppet makes the EXACT same claims against the polygamous side, and not 1 of the gays has the stones to tell him that this was wrong then, and it is wrong now. How telling of all of you gays to fall silent while this occurs. Have none of you got 1 ounce of moral rightness ? Stand and watch while others use this same argument ? How foul of all of you.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182131 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
(Also, the fact that you focus so much on aspects of gay sex really makes me wonder...)
Really? You are trying to shame me with that insinuation???

Too late, note my name. I'm a hermaphrodite and a genetic chimera. Look it up.

As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons;

One, intercourse is at the heart to union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design.

And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect. While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.

Smile.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#182132 Mar 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
My communication skills aren't the problem, you comprehension skills are.
<quoted text>
LOL. Dummy, everyone is treated equally- no one is allowed to marry a person of the same sex and everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.
That's like saying everyone was treated equally under Jim Crow because everybody could sit in the section assigned to their race.

Sorry, LOLSER, the "opposite sex" is not the same for men and women, so men and women are not being treated equally.
akaidiot wrote:
We have been through this before Rose, even the court told you that you are an idiot:
"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.[...]
They are wrong. And I've shown that.
akaidiot wrote:
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. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id.[emphasis added])...Plaintiffs 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)
And by restricting who whites could marry, it restricted who non whites could marry, because some non whites couldn't marry whites.
akaidiot wrote:
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." Hernandez v Robles

Men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't.
Women are allowed to marry men, but men aren't.
Men tend to make more money, so men are disadvantaged when it comes to choosing who to marry.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#182133 Mar 1, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
It sure does, but unlike you when it does so it cites the original source- Skinner v Oklahoma. Something that you like to ignore as it ties marriage and procreation as rights into a nice little bundle.
Stupid, Skinner v OK was not a case about marriage, but about using forced sterilization as punishment for crime. Marriage and procreation were legally tied together back then, as it was against the law to have sex if you weren't married.
But you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, you don't now, and you didn't then.
Loving v VA was a case about marriage.

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.

Patterson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What's that factory west of I-5 at Crow's Landing? (Apr '06) May '15 Mike Daniels 60
Who came up with the names of the Streets in Pa... (Feb '15) Feb '15 Chanate 1
Looking to move to Diablo Grande (Feb '15) Feb '15 Ricky1 1
Looking to move to Diablo Grande (Feb '15) Feb '15 Ricky1 1
News Diablo Grande closes course, defaults on loan (Feb '08) Feb '15 Ricky1 25
Turlock Woman Critical after being Shot by Ex-H... (Jan '15) Jan '15 Angelica Campos 2
do not move to the city of patterson!!!!!!!!!!!... (Apr '10) Nov '14 yo mama 7
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Patterson Mortgages