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.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134934 Apr 2, 2012
Just us wrote:
<quoted text>You are either dumb or a liar. Prop 22 was the law, marriage as one man and one woman. The CSSC pocked their noses in and violated initiative law, by not allowing a stay of their decision for the proponents to get signatures for a ballot initiative for Prop 8. When Prop 8 is upheld, we will go to the courts and invalidate those faux marriages because they are illegal. If we had not gotten the signatures then the stay could have been lifted and then the marriages would have been legal. So, Mom with no clue, shameful marriages were never the law so gays had no rights to same sex marriage.
Yes, equal marriage rights were in force in CA, and many, many homosexual couples took advantage of that. In fact, after Prop 8, it was ruled that those marriages were still legal. Check your facts, Bucko.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134935 Apr 2, 2012
Just us wrote:
<quoted text>You really are a dumb bunny, because the state exercising its interest is why they, the state, makes these things illegal.
We now know why you made a gay child, something went terribly wrong in there.
Yes, the state made these things illegal. But there is no state interest in making marriage illegal. NONE.

BTW My daughters are heterosexual. I am a lesbian. Are you going to blame my parents??? Two out of their five are lesbians.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134937 Apr 2, 2012
Just us wrote:
<quoted text>Did your brain hurt when that thought bounced out, and was discarded? Polygamy and incest are illegal, really, where? Please specify where they are illegal and why. Let me help you, same sex marriage is also illegal in 44 states and 187 countries. So, what closet did you crawl out of?
Same sex marriage is not illegal. It is just not recognized by the government. Now who is the dumb bunny.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134940 Apr 2, 2012
CRIP BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong stretch grasshopper, Native Americans fall under the same "suspect class" race. The issue is twofold "suspect class" and sexual orientation being a behavior and not distinguishable or identifiable. If you would like a case student on sex, women, and their status as a minority group then you are really way out in clueless land. You just got through going through the 10% thing and women are over 50%. Now, wonder bread, go get a research book and study the criteria s for a "suspect class".
Question??? If sexual orientation is a behavior, then chidren are neither heterosexual nor homosexual until they have sex??? Could you post some information that confirms this???

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134942 Apr 2, 2012
CRIP BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>You say that same sex marriage is normal for you, so for how many years have you been married to a same sex partner? Okay, so how many years were you married to an opposite sex partner, and if the gay marriage seems as normal as the straight one that you had then why did you suck it up?
27 years in a pretend heterosexual marriage until he left me for my best friend. 6 years in a same sex relationship with my new best friend and the love of my life.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#134955 Apr 2, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be ridiculous.
And nagging only wins arguments where you live, Missy.
And for the record, I've already linked to the group of physicians who believe same-sex marriage gives the false impression homosexual sex is safe. Here it is again:
http://www.obamnesty.com/index.php...
Why not read the article and learn why they believe the state has an interest in restricting marriage to opposite sex?
And as pointed out, if the state has an interest in the sex lives of polygamists, siblings, the mentally ill, why not homosexuals?
Why should homosexuals alone be given a special dispensation?
Attempting to spread a virus again?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#134956 Apr 2, 2012
CRIP BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, your parents are to blame and two out of five makes sense. Similar environment and socialization and stories you won't tell. Environmental and social factors manufacture gays like a factory bilaterally destroying the amygdala.
That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
Rules Of Evidence

Livermore, CA

#134957 Apr 2, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Attempting to spread a virus again?
Watch out Mona,Dr. Douche is at it again! LOL,You know what happens when his mouth opens,projectile Lie's,hatred and bigotry pour forth!! Beware! LOL
Rules Of Evidence

Livermore, CA

#134958 Apr 2, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a pretty stupid thing to say.
Like I said it's Dr Douche,what do you expect? The truth? LOL
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#134959 Apr 2, 2012
Rules Of Evidence wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said it's Dr Douche,what do you expect? The truth? LOL
Hell no.... not from him. He's too much of a drama queen.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#134963 Apr 3, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be ridiculous.
And nagging only wins arguments where you live, Missy.
And for the record, I've already linked to the group of physicians who believe same-sex marriage gives the false impression homosexual sex is safe. Here it is again:
http://www.obamnesty.com/index.php...
Why not read the article and learn why they believe the state has an interest in restricting marriage to opposite sex?
And as pointed out, if the state has an interest in the sex lives of polygamists, siblings, the mentally ill, why not homosexuals?
Why should homosexuals alone be given a special dispensation?
It doesn't matter how safe or unsafe gay sex is. Not allowing marriage will do absolutely nothing to reduce those numbers so that's a bullshit reason to say no. Not to mention it's hypocritical to stop homosexuals from marrying because of STDs, but have no problem with heterosexuals spreading STDs and marrying. Do we ban all cars because some get in accidents? It's just illogical.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134964 Apr 3, 2012
CRIP BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Well, that means you have no point of reference and no clue. You were lying and deceiving for 27 years, so you only learned to be a liar. Now, you are dating a same sex person for 6 years and using that lying skill you acquired. You have no concept of normal, you only have lying and fornication.
I never lied. I was true to my marriage vows. He left me. Now I know what real love and companionship feels like. I am blessed.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134965 Apr 3, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be ridiculous.
And nagging only wins arguments where you live, Missy.
And for the record, I've already linked to the group of physicians who believe same-sex marriage gives the false impression homosexual sex is safe. Here it is again:
http://www.obamnesty.com/index.php...
Why not read the article and learn why they believe the state has an interest in restricting marriage to opposite sex?
And as pointed out, if the state has an interest in the sex lives of polygamists, siblings, the mentally ill, why not homosexuals?
Why should homosexuals alone be given a special dispensation?
Because homosexual marriage is no more dangerous than heterosexual marriage. NOT IN ANY WAY!!!!

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Baltimore, MD

#134967 Apr 3, 2012
Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
Because homosexual marriage is no more dangerous than heterosexual marriage. NOT IN ANY WAY!!!!
How could you possibly know that, Gay Mom?

Even famed lesbian researcher Nanette Gartrell's research shows 56% of lesbian couples break-up before their kid reaches 17 compared to only 3-30 of heterosexual parents.

Add to this, the problem with all of Gartrell's studies is she samples only lesbians from higher socio-economic groups.

In other words, Gay Mom, your personal opinion is as flawed as your parenting skills.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#134968 Apr 3, 2012
chief22 wrote:
No where did the proposition say it banned anything,
Walker's ruling was such that he was able to personally gain by it, meaning Conflict or interest. and no where in the Constitution refer to marriage.
Prop 8
"Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

This is a de facto ban on gay marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#134969 Apr 3, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Homosexuals have the right to marry under the conditions everyone else can marry. They do not have the right to change the rules to their own liking which is what they're trying to do. States can attach rules to marriage and they do. Your argument that the opposite sex rule is discriminatory is not based on the presumed Constitutional units of male and female, but by some bizarre sex cult definition of personhood not found in any of our laws including Lawrence vs Texas.
Of course, you seemingly lack the ability to cite a compelling state interest served by these “conditions”, which exclude people from marriage, that would make them constitutional.
States must provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and may not abridge the rights of US citizens.
Prof Marvel wrote:
The 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" was predicated on the notion of of "persons" being defined as male or female, not male, female, or homosexual.
Are homosexuals persons, yes or no?
Here’s a hint, the answer is yes.
Notions like this make you look foolish, and that’s being generous.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Indeed, nowhere in the history of the Equal Protection Clause do we acknowledge -- de facto or other wise -- gays are a suspect class.
It was painstakenly explained to you that even in Lawrence the Supreme Court did not extend suspect class status to the gay appellants, but this explanation as do most, went completely over your pudding head.
They need not be, as they are people. It isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Get it through your one-chambered brain Lawrence vs Texas does not in any way, size, shape or form confer suspect status to homosexuals and if Lawrence doesn't no other case we no of even comes close.
Which means at the Supreme Court level there is no reason to regard gays as anything but a sex cult -- no Supreme Court decisions that treated them as a de facto minority.
Are you getting all of this, Bubber?
It doesn’t need to, as people, they are entitled to equal protection of the law, and you have consistently failed to cite a compelling state interest to deny such protection.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#134970 Apr 3, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Moron!
Not only is your conclusion utterly wrong, but you've been given countless examples of instances where state government continues to have an interest in the private sexual conduct of citizens:
1. Incest
2. HIV
3. BDSM
4. Prostitution
5. "Swinging"
6. Pornography
7. Exhibitionism/masturbation
8. Public sex
9. Sex-texting using government property.
10. Solicitation (that senator in the mensroom)
These are just a few activities prohibited by most state governments; there are many more.
Now will you stop wasting everybody's time with your ignorant posts?
Actually, each and every one of these is covered by Lawrence, with the exception of the public acts. Naturally, there is a state interest in those.

There is no legitimate state interest in the private consensual sexual activity between consenting adults, unless one is spreading disease without disclosing the risk. Even those with HIV/AIDS do not have their sexual lives infringed so long as they disclose their status to their partners.

Making claims like these truly makes you look ignorant, or perhaps this is your way of admitting that you are?

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Baltimore, MD

#134971 Apr 3, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you seemingly lack the ability to cite a compelling state interest served by these “conditions”, which exclude people from marriage, that would make them constitutional.
States must provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and may not abridge the rights of US citizens.
<quoted text>
Are homosexuals persons, yes or no?
Here’s a hint, the answer is yes.
Notions like this make you look foolish, and that’s being generous.
<quoted text>
They need not be, as they are people. It isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.
<quoted text>
It doesn’t need to, as people, they are entitled to equal protection of the law, and you have consistently failed to cite a compelling state interest to deny such protection.
As explained to you, fella, there are two ways you support the claim gays are being discriminated against:

1. Gays are suspect class

2. Gays have a rational basis for seeking suspect class status.

We can dismiss the first condition because gays are a sexual orientation which no common law has ever granted suspect class status to.

The second condition (rational basis)has found some success at the state level, and arguably, is the basis for Lawrence vs Texas.

The problem is since Lawrence vs Texas no Supreme Court decision has codified this -- no other decisions have recognized sexual orientation as a unique group.

In other words, until the Supreme Court renders a decision that recognizes sexual orientation as a unique group, gays -- as a group -- have no Constitutional Stare decisis for anything they claim.

The Conservative Robert's Court is the key.

If Prop 8 makes it to the Court the decision will either be that gays are a de facto suspect class or not. If not, that's it: all your Constitutional claims will be without merit because you'll be viewed as little more than a sex cult -- not a suspect class.

Chances of the Robert's Court ruling against Prop 8?

ZERO.

And that's the whole thing in a nutshell, pal.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134972 Apr 3, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
How could you possibly know that, Gay Mom?
Even famed lesbian researcher Nanette Gartrell's research shows 56% of lesbian couples break-up before their kid reaches 17 compared to only 3-30 of heterosexual parents.
Add to this, the problem with all of Gartrell's studies is she samples only lesbians from higher socio-economic groups.
In other words, Gay Mom, your personal opinion is as flawed as your parenting skills.
I love how you throw around numbers with no back up. Do you think we are that gullible?? Put some facts where your mouth is or don't post it.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#134973 Apr 3, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Chances of the Robert's Court ruling against Prop 8?
ZERO.
And that's the whole thing in a nutshell, pal.
You don't seem to get it.......as long as Chief Justice Robert's and his clan remain uncertain as to how Justice Kennedy will vote.......they AREN'T going to touch the Perry case with a 10 foot pole!!!

You and those like you think that SCOTUS is going to rule in your favor.......what if they don't? Will you call them activist Judges as well?

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
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
audition!! audition!! audition Y B N L need up ... Aug 23 Dr Smith manager 1
hello friends Aug 21 Anonymous 2
News Abortion Harvesting Scandal: Aborted Baby Organ... Jul '15 soylent green is ... 1
News The Carvery in Downtown Livermore Closes (Nov '13) Jul '15 Ssophiiee 9
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Redwood City Mortgages