Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201864 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.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#130692 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"Domestic partnership, gay marriage....whatever you want to call it.....GO FOR IT! It's YOUR baby! It will NEVER EVER be the same as straight marriage! NOBODY gives a rats azz!!!!!!"
See how that works?
Jokes on you ....we have it!ROTFL
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130693 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
P.S. If you think I am also the poster "Reality" you're really dumb. But fine, it makes your responses to both of us extra stupid.
Your kidding right? I was just acknowledging your right to marry as many men and women as will have you, which at last count was ZERO.

PS: You could not write posts as articulate has "Reality" has of your life depended on it.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130694 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"Domestic partnership, gay marriage....whatever you want to call it.....GO FOR IT! It's YOUR baby! It will NEVER EVER be the same as straight marriage! NOBODY gives a rats azz!!!!!!"
See how that works?
So YOU have been posting here pretty much non-stop for the past few day because You don't give a rat's azz? OK then...
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130696 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
to them Polygamy is a calling from god...
Then they should be responsible enough to not bring children into a world of POVERTY by making sure they can SUPPORT the children they make the same way I support the child I made.

Simple enough.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130698 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
You hate men.
Reality wrote:
I don't think you hate anyone
Um...Do try to keep up with your own comments!
Rules Of Evidence

Livermore, CA

#130702 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Your kidding right? I was just acknowledging your right to marry as many men and women as will have you, which at last count was ZERO.
PS: You could not write posts as articulate has "Reality" has of your life depended on it.
Oopsey daisy! LOL,It seems ratzo rizzo's posts go POOF! Praise and hallelujah! It seems even the Moderators agree that all his posts are off topic B.S.? Yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk!!! Now,any bets as to when the stay on prop 8 in California is lifted? It's only a matter of time!
Winston Smith

Franklinville, NJ

#130703 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, I do, but a decision to have the child knowing there would be no father present actually places no value on the effort required to raise a child.
We ignore the father role and equate it to merely "paying up".
Why do we give the mother the choice to have a baby without a daddy? As Lady doctor said, her choice was to use contraception.
I am not right to life, I am just saying that this "its a woman's body its a woman'd choice" is fine, but then leave the men out of it. They cannot be in at your whim. They are either responsible or not.
Let me preface the following by stating that I am a medical professional. I have positioned myself, occasionally, to testify as an expert witness. I have first hand knowledge of how both the legal and medical professions work.

As a practitioner I am often called upon to make decisions in seconds that may have an impact on the rest of a patient's life.

In the legal system the rate of progress is exceeded by leaps and bounds by the speed of smell. I have performed examinations on patients that have had court dates scheduled a few months later. Thanks to the efforts of the latest judge I've been appearing before these cases get streamlined in that by the time I appear all parties have to have their ducks in a row, so to speak. In the past it wasn't unusual for me to make three separate appearances over a period of months on the same case because someone hadn't arranged for a public defender or a lawyer asked for a case to be continued or a defendant begged a jury trial.

Gestation takes 9 months. Finding out one is pregnant may take a little time. One would think a month sans menses would make a woman curious enough to investigate. But that doesn't always ring true.

So a woman gets pregnant and decides she wants to abort. Her boyfriend disagrees and it gets to the point that lawyers are called in. One would hope it didn't come to this, but as we're at an impasse who ya gonna call? Ghost busters? Nope, an attorney.

A day in court is scheduled. All the boyfriend's lawyer needs to do to "win" is to stall until it is too late. Right off the bat it isn't hard to predict that the lawyers won't be contacted until the second month is up, at least. Now we need a hearing. The dockets are full so we'll watch another month pass.

I don't think this is out of the realm of possibility in our litigious society.

There is a built in problem when the legal system becomes intertwined with the practice of medicine while a medical case is in progress.

So, how are you going to make the decision? Who gets final say in a 50/50 dispute. Should a woman be forced, against her will, to bear nine months of pregnancy, parturition, and post partum medical issues?
Winston Smith

Franklinville, NJ

#130704 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>

We ignore the father role and equate it to merely "paying up".
That isn't necessarily a fair assessment about exactly who is ignoring the father role.
SpamOlater

Monrovia, CA

#130705 Feb 28, 2012
What ever makes the world go round, is the sure fire method of spinning a circle in to the ground.
katy

Redwood City, CA

#130706 Feb 28, 2012
Wow, My best frnd ,she just has annuncd hr w&#275;dd&#299;ng w&#299;th a rich m&#257;n
who is a clbrty !They mt via~~~~{-TallLoving.&#1057 ;&#963;&#1084; ~}~~~..it is the
l&#257;rg&#275;st and b&#275;st clb for rich man with yung and beautiful woman and
ther dmirrs to cht &#333;nln.You do n&#466;t hv to b r&#299;ch r f&#257;ms.
,bt y&#333;u c&#257;n me&#275;t yr tr&#275; lv,

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130707 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, after all people should be punished for having sex be being forced to raise (unwanted) children. More important the children should spend 18 years paying by being raised by parents (or more likely mothers) who didn't want then in the first place.
We should probably should outlaw birth control too, since it "removes responsibility" by preventing the consequences of sex.
Any other "family values" you care to share?
You're an idiot. There are responsibilities which come with actions, I am sorry that your parents never taught you this.

Everyone wants to scream about their right to this or that, but cower when they have to accept the possible consequences which come with it.

And what is this nonsense about banning birth control? Is your argument that weak that you need to just toss nonsense into the conversation?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130708 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. Men who wish to avoid fatherhood but do not take precautions before hand and then whine about their "right's" after the fact really piss me off.
Yeah, that's right, men are the problem..

Thank you for proving my point.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130709 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Avoid being smarmy next time...
Awe, did I hurt your feelings?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130710 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
It's OBVIOUS from your posts that you are one of the chosen few who are privy too the intentions of the founding fathers.
I don't see you providing any insight as to why I am wrong? You simply come in and keep screaming I am wrong without any relevant information to support your position.

You do realize you don't win a debate by simply claiming the other person is wrong don't you?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#130711 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
very wrong. It was merely a legal tactic by the Prop 8 lawyers which I will explain to you if you would listen. Under rational review (the standard used by Walker) the proponent of the law DOE SNOT NEED to offer evidence, the court can think of ANY REASON for the law and substitute that reason.
from wiki (to avoid claims of bias):
"The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest.[1][2] Under this standard of review, the "legitimate interest" does not have to be the governments actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review.[3]"
Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review.
So there was no need to put on any evidence, but you did highlight a major flaw in Walker's decision, that he did not follow the standard.
As to the harms, you simply believe the alleged harms against polygamy but not the ones against gay marriage. That is how its hypocritical. NOTE: I dont think the things I write below are true, but its as true as what you wrote. Old tradition, stereotypes and morality dressed up as science!
1. How does gay marriage harm women?
It takes babies from them and gives it to two guys. Women will be raised without their birth mother and with two dads. Women will lose their womanhood being dominated by two males with no mother.
How does gay marriage harm children?
Do I need to post the statistics folks post about the higher levels of pedophilia in the gay community? As good a science as your claims against polygamy!
Not to mention that VT custody case....
a step parent getting custody!
How does gay marriage harm families?
All the above, Plus it removes the genetics by utilizing anonymous donors. Incest will be rampant with sperm donors having 1,000 kids as the news reported recently. Again, is this all true? About as true as what you wrote about polygamy!
How does gay marriage harm men?
Two women who hate men have a male child...how good is that for him? See that Vt case again. They were raising the female child in a NO MEN environment!
Gay marriage undercuts the role of BOTH SEXES. Lesbian marriage therefore denigrate fatherhood and vice versa...again, do I believe this personally, NO....but its the same stuff you pitch at polygamy.. HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT?!?!?!?
The problem with this board is I am now going to get a bunch of posts saying how my claims here are not well founded (and insulted a bunch besides) without anyone catching that these reason are the same flake reasons Mona posted to polygamy and that is the point I am making.
So I ask again, do we have a right to marry any consenting adult we want or not?
Saying well women get forced is nonsense because they are not consenting!
Besides that Mona's list is merely the same as what I posted about gays.
Oh puh-leez. Marriage takes babies away from women? Are you fucking nuts? Your comment about pedophilia is a lie, but don't let facts stops you from spreading your shit.

And since you OBVIOUSLY haven't been keeping up, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there isn't a rational basis for Prop 8.

Suck it, loser. People are catching onto your lies.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130712 Feb 28, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't going to happen by eliminating a choice that some would make. I don't think all of society's ills come down to kids having sex with disregard for the consequences. It, IMHO, goes back to the parents. All the more reason to not force parenthood upon someone who clearly isn't ready for it simply because they've made a choice that says so.
Moving back to the meat of the argument, who's desires should carry the most weight in the decision to have or not to have a child? The father or the mother? I think I've made my point clear as no matter which way you slice it, the mother is going to be the one with the most burden during gestation.
You seem to think that one person has more say in the matter. It was an equal decision to lay down and have sex. Why is it not an equal decision when it comes to the decision to carry the pregnancy? And don't feed me that sh%% about the guy not having to carry the baby, that is irrelevant, that should have been considered prior to the act.

Now all of a sudden because the sperm met the egg the female now has the choice over life or death, over child support or not, over everything?/

Seems kind of funny that people who are so adamant that same sex couples cannot be denied marriage because of "equal right's" are in the same breath saying that the male has unequal right's in regards to a being which is half his?

And yes, I do find a direct correlation between where our society is heading and the fact that we are attempting to rapidly eliminate all negative outcomes to actions.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130713 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
A record? Only if we ignore the eight (out of ten) OFF TOPIC comments you made on that same page.
Oops! Forgot, we are supposed to make special allowances for you. Sorry.
Yawn.. Get back to me when you have something worthwhile to say.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130714 Feb 28, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
AKP, are you a dad? Do you pay child support? Do you think that the 18 year burden of paying child support compares to the 9 month burden of carrying a child, or do you really believe a man's responsibility for raising a child is limited to paying child support?
Are you ever able to comprehend a point?
I never said a man's role was limited to child support, I simply made the argument that everyone wants to cry about the 9 months a woman must carry a child when it pales in comparison to the 18 months she may burden a man, by her choice alone, with ZERO input from the male.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot.
Yes, you are.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
I paid child support for 4 years. I paid more in child support than many men make in a month, and now, I am the custodial parent.
So? This has nothing to do with the discussion.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need child support. I make a decent enough living to have already paid for my daughter's college education, and she's only 8.
Good for you, again has nothing to do with the discussion.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to have my ex-wife's support in educating my daugther, but that's as far from reality as Frank's plea for equality for polygamists.
So, you made a poor choice. The point is, it seems you are accepting responsibility for that choice. Are you looking for a pat on the back?
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Be that as it may, my wife is more of a mother to my daughter than her own mother is, hence the reason my daughter refers to my wife as "mom."
Carrying the child is a burden; paying child support is also a burden. But, neither compare with the burden of raising a child and that's a burden not many men, and certainly not certain women, are cut out to carry. So, until men can gestate, a condition precedent to the burden of raising a child will always be the burden of carrying the child during pregnancy. And that will always be the woman's choice.
Well, that was a nice rant, but had nothing to do with anything we were discussing.
Winston Smith

New Salem, MA

#130715 Feb 28, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to think that one person has more say in the matter. It was an equal decision to lay down and have sex. Why is it not an equal decision when it comes to the decision to carry the pregnancy? And don't feed me that sh%% about the guy not having to carry the baby, that is irrelevant, that should have been considered prior to the act.
Now all of a sudden because the sperm met the egg the female now has the choice over life or death, over child support or not, over everything?/
Seems kind of funny that people who are so adamant that same sex couples cannot be denied marriage because of "equal right's" are in the same breath saying that the male has unequal right's in regards to a being which is half his?
And yes, I do find a direct correlation between where our society is heading and the fact that we are attempting to rapidly eliminate all negative outcomes to actions.
So then, the happy couple is at an impasse. What then? I've asked this question a few times in various forms.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130716 Feb 28, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
The world evolves and society evolves with it AKP. If it didn't, we'd still have full service gas stations, 10 oz glass bottles of coke that cost only 25 cents and so on.
Yes, that is why the founders gave us Article V. They knew they weren't perfect, and wouldn't get it 100% right. The problem is, you guys seem to think an Amendment is too much work so you wimply go to the judge.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution does have one side; the side of the people and the rights it recognize, apply EQUALLY to all citizens.
That's funny, if that is the case why did we need the:
14th Amendment? The Constitution made everyone equal right?

Then, if you claim the 14th made everyone equal, why did we need the 15th and 19th Amendment?

It's not me who is trying to rewrite the Constitution, it is you. You are attempting to make the 14th and the Constitution as a whole into something it isn't.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>

So, it's not Judges, politicians and lawyers who train anyone to think it has various interpretations; is that people do not accept that it does. If people did, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the basis for the SSM argument, would not instill such debate as it does.
No, because if the 14th did all the magical things you claim there would have been no need for the 15th and 19th. But hey, who care when we are revising history right?
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
So, unless you can recall the precise moment in time when you were conceived, you need to shut up about a woman's right to an abortion.
Wow, that was stupid.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless you can recall the precise moment in time when you CHOSE to be a heterosexual, you need to shut up about gays' rights to marry.
Now you are getting defensive because your argument is so weak. You have gone all over the map now. Try to stay on track.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
And uless you can cite the constitutional amendment, case law, or Federal Statute that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, you need to shut up about what lawyers, judges and politicians are trying to train people to think.
The US Constitution is silent on marriage, the Federal Government, and that includes the judiciary, has ZERO say in the matter. And BTW, California now has a Constitutional Amendment stating just that. So it is you who can kindly shut up.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what certain religious cults are doing.
Religions are no better than your revisionist nonsense.

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
supernatural 5 hr rudra21m 1
i want love 5 hr rudra21m 2
Review: Cheap Movers In Redwood City Mon nita singler 1
kon kon aaj threesame krna chahta h Aug 27 Anonymous 2
News Advances Against Chronic Pain (Sep '12) Aug 26 Ambct617 20
cari tante yg suka brondong Aug 25 Ajis19 1
News Abortion Harvesting Scandal: Aborted Baby Organ... Jul '15 soylent green is ... 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Redwood City Mortgages