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 6,033)

Showing posts 120,641 - 120,660 of200,207
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134816
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the Nazis were good for one thing. They gave us a point of reference to describe intolerant oppressors.
There you go again! Godwin's Law. YUK!YUK!YUK!

Geez you clowns are fun.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134817
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't expecting a rational answer.
That's good since you didn't ask a rational question.

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134818
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You can single out just one? There seem to be many offering irrational BS.
lides is jealous! He wants to be a chief idiot too. But we can only choose one... My vote is for lides. He's funniest too.

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134819
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
No attempt to mislead with the review. I choose his because he stated several key faults in the methodology of the study. As he stated, they invalidate the study. What is unaddressed is the conflict the conclusions of this study have with the Cinderella Effect.
So far this is the only long term study on gay parenting I'm familiar with. If you are aware of any others, I'm all ears.
No, you said it was a "peer review" - you did intend in your own choice of words to mislead.

What you posted was an opinion, not universally shared by others or noted by others who also posted.

The biostatistician also failed to note that this study has an extremely high retention rate which for a study this long, is remarkable.

Remember, there are lies, dang lies and statistics. There is no "Cinderella" effect here. What this study does compared to other studies on LGBT parenting, is support the notion that LGBT parent put a lot more thought and a lot more of their lives into parenting. LGBT parents, like the community they are part of, must put more work into all we do, including parenting, because the societal deck is stacked against us. We don't "accidentally"
have kids, we choose to have them and then have a process that we have to work at very hard to get them. It is that deliberative process that gives us a slight edge and that has been recognized by other studies of this type, much like IVF or surrogacy parents.

People who have to work harder for a goal, tend to produce better results.

Eric

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134820
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 banned nothing, and judg walker acted in his own self interest
Prop 8 did ban something, the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Judge Walker did not act in his own self interest as he could have, and did not, marry when it was legal in the State of California to do so.

Further to that, there are very few other legal experts or judges who find fault with his reasoning.

I like you Chief, but here, you are quite wrong.

Eric

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134821
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
<quoted text>So muc lies and so much self deceit. What right did Prop 8 eliminate, the right to marry? No, because gays can marry. The right to marry who you choose? No, no one has that right. Judge Walker, irrelevant, did have an interest in marriage and he did not get married because he never had the right. So, you are saying that Prop 8 should bve upheld, because no gays have an interest or else they would have done so before.
Here are the facts:

Equal marriage rights were the law in CA.

PROP 8 banned them with no reason but hatred of homosexuals

Constitutionally, you can not take away a right already granted without a state reason to do so

Hate is not a rational state reason

This is all in the 9th district court ruling, if you have any trouble with these facts.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134822
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
If you wish to erase the colonies and when America was settled, because you think that it is based on barbarism instead of ciivlized then we would have to extend that until 1965 when the Civil Rights Amendment was passed.
We are discussing matters of law and civil rights. It is illogical to hold the colonists liable for colonial law, since they were effectively under British law. If we were having a rational conversation about the laws of the United States, then your math is plainly wrong
SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
Your argument against polygamy marriage is that two people deserve protection but three do not. Wow, April Fools. Why are all the bigoted supporters of same sex marriage, are selfish and exclude all similar groups such as polygamist since polyamory is not illegal.
Uhm. Same sex marriage seeks equal protection for two people, not greater protection for three. What difficulty do people who advance this argument have counting?
SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
You are very scattered, incest marriage has as much validity as same sex marriage and incest marriage has only been addressed as a matter of procreation and deformity of children, when same sex incest marriage does not present that issue. So, please present your argument against it since your argument against incest marriage.
Incestuous marriage has already been dealt with as a matter of law. That would not change if same sex marriage were adopted, nor is there any legitimate attempt to do so, even in the jurisdictions where same sex marriage is legal. It appears you are advancing, yet another bogus argument.
SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
There is not movement for same sex marriage, but to undo marriage as between only a man and a woman. YThat in of it self is a movement for polygamy marriage.
Sorry Charlie. In every jurisdiction where marriage equality has come to pass, the existing (or yet to be performed) traditional marriages are as strong as they ever were. Feel free to give concrete proof to the contrary. You canít, you never give specifics on anything, and when you do, theyíre wrong.
SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
You totally lack the competence and education to present any facts. You need to learn matters of law, you are attempted to change the law, we are not trying to ban same sex marriage, because it has to exist in order to be banned.
Read the US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1. Equal protection is already a part of the highest law of the land. It is you who are arguing to prevent equal protection.
SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
Just because you are foolish and believe the sound bites about banning gay marriages, it does not mean that the intelligent people think this. Do you even understand the definition of ban? We have never had same sex marriages and we have always defined marriage as being one man and one woman, so we do not have to prove anything. We already proved it, when we made it the marriage law of the land, common marial laws of all states, and the common international marriage law of all countries, from decade, centuries and forever.
Do you ever stop to read your posts in order to prevent yourself from saying something foolish? Has Sharia law ever existed in Oklahoma, because they absolutely passed a ban on Sharia law within the past few years? You see, something need not ever have been in existence to be banned by law.

It appears that even the most basic logic escapes you. The funny part is, you think that others are ignorant.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134823
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
Get ready to march and cry, because you all just don't get the law and you don't have enough stupid people.
If you believe that I have lsot this argument, feel free to present a sentence of supporting facts to disprove anything that I have said.
Well, letís see, there the equal protection clause; the 14th Amendment also enjoins states from abridging the rights of US Citizens (which gay marriage bans absolutely do); thereís strict scrutiny, the level of judicial review applicable when dealing with infringing constitutional rights like equal protection, which requires that before a constitutional right is infringed a compelling state interest must be served; There is the fact that the US Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right, and done so on 14 separate occasions; and in a separate ruling held that fundamental rights may not be put to a vote; I could go on, however you have yet to even rationally address the aforementioned.

Do I think you have lost? No. I think your arguments have been decimated one by one. You attempt, inexpertly to put words in my mouth making nonsense arguments about incest and polygamy, but the reality is that these have been addressed as a matter of law and will be unaffected by allowing same sex marriage. The jurisdictions that already allow gay marriage clearly illustrate this fact.
SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
Your polygamy and incest arguments were defeated 3 years ago, so come up with something new.
Actually, those are your arguments, I have correctly pointed out that they are irrelevant, as they have both been addressed by law and would not change if marriage equality were allowed.

Your polygamy argument is particularly priceless and childlike, simply because it is so easily dispatched by indicating the simple fact that it seeks greater (three or more is greater than two), not equal, protection of the law.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134825
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Prof Marvel wrote:
Unless I'm wrong, gays have every right everyone else does; namely, they can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Nice rationalization. I have a question for you, what legitimate state interest is served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that makes such a restriction constitutional?
Prof Marvel wrote:
This means in order for the government to concede that gays are being treated unequally, the government must first accept -- as you do -- the notion that homosexuality is normal and poses no health threat just as it would have to accept the notion that incest is normal and poses no health threat.
Arguments of normalcy are utterly irrelevant. The KKK and Westboro Baptist Church are by no means normal, however that does not affect their right to free speech. It seems that you are merely rationalizing once again. That said, it isnít even a particularly good rationalization.
Prof Marvel wrote:
This question of safety is key. Were the government to permit incestuous marriages -- which we know are not safe -- we'd be flooded with babies with birth defects.
Ergo, there is a legitimate state interest served by disallowing incestuous marriages. What legitimate state interest do you think is served by denying same sex couples the right to marry
I love it when you make a point that actually damages your argument.
Prof Marvel wrote:
In other words, the government must balance the rights and protections in the Constitution against public health concerns.
Do you at least concede this much, you dodo?
If there is a legitimate state interest, then constitutional rights may be infringed. You have yet to turn up a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.

And before you trot out a tired argument about the higher rate of the transmission of STIs via homosexual sex (yes, you really are that transparent), remember these two things; a) Lawrence v Texas struck down laws barring homosexual sodomy, citing that the state had no legitimate interest in the private sexual conduct of citizens; and b) disallowing same sex marriage does not prevent homosexuals from having sex, allowing it does promote monogamous relationships, which would help curb the spread of STIs by reducing the number of sexual partners one has.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134826
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you stoop immediately to a quip, rather than address the substantial question before you. "Do you actually consider the demand for equality to be a radical idea?"
It appears you M.O. is obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.
That wasn't the "substantial question before me" The words I "stooped immediately to" were "You are another Nazi Fundietard"

Godwin's Law. Don't like it? Don't evoke it.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134827
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
.....Your polygamy argument is particularly priceless and childlike, simply because it is so easily dispatched by indicating the simple fact that it seeks greater (three or more is greater than two), not equal, protection of the law.
"...seeks greater protection (three is greater than 2)" Now that's Priceless! Just priceless!

Anyone who supports same sex marriage but not polygamy is a bigot and a hypocrite.

I support marriage equality for all consenting adults. You do not. The end.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Baltimore, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134828
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you said it was a "peer review" - you did intend in your own choice of words to mislead.
What you posted was an opinion, not universally shared by others or noted by others who also posted.
The biostatistician also failed to note that this study has an extremely high retention rate which for a study this long, is remarkable.
Remember, there are lies, dang lies and statistics. There is no "Cinderella" effect here. What this study does compared to other studies on LGBT parenting, is support the notion that LGBT parent put a lot more thought and a lot more of their lives into parenting. LGBT parents, like the community they are part of, must put more work into all we do, including parenting, because the societal deck is stacked against us. We don't "accidentally"
have kids, we choose to have them and then have a process that we have to work at very hard to get them. It is that deliberative process that gives us a slight edge and that has been recognized by other studies of this type, much like IVF or surrogacy parents.
People who have to work harder for a goal, tend to produce better results.
Eric
And here we see Eric doesn't even know what "peer review" means. Here's his definition:
What you posted was an opinion, not universally shared by others or noted by others who also posted.-- Eric
No, Eric, "peer review" does not mean "universally shared by others or noted by others" it simply means "reviewed by a peer" ... generally in some published venue -- that's all, son.

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134829
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't the "substantial question before me" The words I "stooped immediately to" were "You are another Nazi Fundietard"
Godwin's Law. Don't like it? Don't evoke it.
Bull! You were simply avoiding the question. So I'll repeat it without the Nazi comment.

Do you think that demanding equal rights is a radical idea??

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134830
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
And here we see Eric doesn't even know what "peer review" means. Here's his definition:
<quoted text>
No, Eric, "peer review" does not mean "universally shared by others or noted by others" it simply means "reviewed by a peer" ... generally in some published venue -- that's all, son.
You are correct. Sometimes aberrant studies find there way into publishing. But it is akin to finding the average, you throw out those that are too far from the rest when calculating. Since no one repeated this study or anything close to it, it really holds no credible place in this area.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134832
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull! You were simply avoiding the question. So I'll repeat it without the Nazi comment.
Do you think that demanding equal rights is a radical idea??
You gotta pay attention. Maybe strap your knee down so it doesn't jerk so easily.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134833
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Religionthebiglie wrote:
Bull! You were simply avoiding the question. So I'll repeat it without the Nazi comment.
Do you think that demanding equal rights is a radical idea??
Rizzo isn't here to make any relevant comment on the discussion, they are just stirring the pot.
They clearly will say anything to get a rise out of someone, and have no intention of adding anyhting particularly meaningful.
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134834
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
.html
Sooo, the first google link as suggested by you mentions reproduction as a right independent of marriage. Subsequent links reflect similarly. I didn't find one that tied marriage to reproduction as it would seem you want to indicate. Procreation is even protected for homosexuals in that choice is not eliminated for unmarried persons.
that procreation rights were held outside of marriage does not change that marriage itself is protected only as it relates to that same procreation.
procreation is the liberty, not access to a state issued LICENSE.
Read LOVING again...

In short, marriage is linked to procreation because that's how some of us procreators want it.

For example,what is the legal definition of "bastard"?
Funny it has birth and marriage in the same sentence...is that a LINK found in the law.

Linked and required are not the same thing. Procreation is not required to have a marriage, but the constitution protects procreation and to the extent its linked to procreation, some marriage rights too.

And again, we do not have a right to GOVERNMENT recognition based in our right to privacy also called our right to be let ALONE from gov't. We do maintain a right to be free from govt intrusion in having our kids.
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134835
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>

This is all in the 9th district court ruling, if you have any trouble with these facts.
And the 9th circuit specifically limited the decision to CA, which is not usually an indication of "good law"...

they dodged SCOTUS review and we both know why...

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134836
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You gotta pay attention. Maybe strap your knee down so it doesn't jerk so easily.
Whatever. Happy trolling.
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134837
Apr 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

this thread is running out of steam . . .

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 120,641 - 120,660 of200,207
|
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.

5 Users are viewing the Redwood City Forum right now

Search the Redwood City Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
sex 5 hr Smeer 1
San Mateo: Man arrested on suspicion of pimping... 9 hr mrs eli 2
East Palo Alto man sentenced to 13 years prison... 13 hr mrs eli 3
Managing Director 13 hr mrs eli 1
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 23 hr Punk a s Murabito 4,834
Millions of gallons of water leaking into Bay: ... Tue Obambe Dumbshhitt 4
Review: Vencoa Inc (Jul '12) Jul 5 jainy2 54
•••
•••

Redwood City News Video

•••
•••

Redwood City Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••