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
143,681 - 143,700 of 200,607 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#162980 Oct 13, 2012
Martina Navratilover wrote:
<quoted text>Emotions are one thing, but your lies are another. Since, Nov 2008 Prop 8 has not only been constitutional on a federal level, it is the California state constitution. All you have is about to, but sorry, Justice Scalia tried to warn and advise you, marriage equality which means no same sex marriage, is about to be the law of the land in the US.
Why Prop 8 is constitutional?
Because Prop 8 is the California constitution. So,what about on the federal level, well as the Supreme Court says, the gays need 3/4 states or 38 to change the US constitution.
let me guess...

you come from the crowd who willing to hide behind state9or federal) law when it is convienient...

but if medical marijuana comes up??

youll proabably say....."why that is against federal law"

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#162981 Oct 13, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
theyll never understand what civil rights are.
I loved michael in the green mile and "the island"
I was very sorry to see him go.
my condolences
No, you will not ever understand what civil rights are, which is why gays are more racist against blacks than found in the general population. Gays still have no blacks allowed gay bars, gay bath houses and gay private clubs. You freaks have burned or fire bombed over 80 black churches, and in Jan 2009 you even disrupted Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. You know, MLK's own church.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#162982 Oct 13, 2012
Martina Navratilover wrote:
<quoted text>Really, then how come the gay activists are tying to repeal a ban in the military on sodomy bestiality? Are they thinking about straights, gays or dogs?
equating bestiality with being gay only makes you look REALLY ignorant...

just sayin, guy dont like that.

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#162983 Oct 13, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
let me guess, your getting your statistics from inside the right wing social conservative talk info bubble.
we in the real world think of that as a fantsy realm, where just about anything can be claimed(and usually is)
it is sad to see a women as a bigot...
but it happens!!
all the people in my life have different strengths and weaknesses..
and it is no different for gays....
but youll have to validate that claim on gay crime, because it is BS.......... pathetic!!
you just cant handle other peoples lifestyles? and that was your arguement?? pathetic.
do better next time.
Try this, I get my info straight from the CDC. Try it. Yeah, how often lesbians are bigots and hate blacks and men. It was you who claimed some correlation of goodness to gays, based on some alleged gays you know. Sorry, I deal with real records, gay on gay crimes. Check this one out, and check all your lies at the gay bar. Matthew Shepard was killed by his gay lover, McKinney, for drugs and money. Yes, 20/20 did the real story in 2004 and he prosecutor confirmed. But, you gays wanted to hate, so you abused Matthews memory for a hate crime bill based on a gay murderer.

Sorry, little girl, do not project your menial mind onto me. I, not you, have many friends of many backgrounds, and we do not have to agree, which is the case with some of my gay friends, and some of the gays are opposed to your monocentric view of gays.

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#162984 Oct 13, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
equating bestiality with being gay only makes you look REALLY ignorant...
just sayin, guy dont like that.
Why do you hate gays? The ban is called USC.925.Art.125 and it was actually gay groups and Obama who equated the ban on sodomy people and sodomy animals with gay rights. Nov. and Dec. 2011. Do some research and stop your bigotry and hate.

By the way, you are either 12 or illiterate, so which is it.

“Ask me who I am and I”

Since: Sep 12

will tell you the same

#162985 Oct 13, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
let me guess...
you come from the crowd who willing to hide behind state9or federal) law when it is convienient...
but if medical marijuana comes up??
youll proabably say....."why that is against federal law"
I am against marijuana period and illegal immigration, if you must know. The operative word is illegal, and yes, I do have friends who are here illegally.

Go back to school.

Spelling lesson:

convenient
you'll
probably
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#162987 Oct 13, 2012
Michael Clark Duncan wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread! In the second place your statement if false!
In other words you don't want to talk about it. Who cares if Obama neglected a gay man in Libya. Yes he was raped, but he was already dead, so i guess that doesn't count for you. My second statement was true.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#162989 Oct 13, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Speak for yourself, cupcake, you don't represent any man at all.
I like her already.
bigoted birds of a feather??
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#162990 Oct 13, 2012
Martina Navratilover wrote:
<quoted text>I am against marijuana period and illegal immigration, if you must know. The operative word is illegal, and yes, I do have friends who are here illegally.
Go back to school.
Spelling lesson:
convenient
you'll
probably
so in other words.....

federal law is only used when convienient??

you typical teabuttlicker...

who can take you seriously

ps: federal law applies to applying the constitution....that is it!!
Winston Smith

Temple Hills, MD

#162991 Oct 13, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and that sure beats stabbing ass, any day of the week. Wipe the jizz off now....
What does, having a need to lie to complete strangers about the sexy woman you want others to believe you're bagging? The tune that pops into my head at this point in time is an oldie by ARS. Imaginary lover. Lemme know if you heard it in your youth...
Winston Smith

Temple Hills, MD

#162992 Oct 13, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiots are amazing. Who would of thought that a post which claims DOMA is unconstitutional would get 6 poor judge-its??
Goes to show that you are all just a bunch of sheep who can't think for yourselves.
Ya know what AK? You and I differ in regards to which one of the two possibilities we're going to have as the next POTUS. What I'd be willing to wager is that the two of us are of the mind that the choices are dismal. And this is nothing new - in reality it is so old it is expected.
Winston Smith

Temple Hills, MD

#162993 Oct 13, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Obammy's rescinding of Clintons "don't ask, don't tell" opened the door for the lesbians in the US Army, one of whom was ogling my niece in the shower from a tree the day before her grauation from Boot Camp. Answer that...Leching from a tree and denying same. True Story.
Whether or not your story is true, it isn't beyond reality to think that it is. OTOH, it isn't a valid argument against a policy that doesn't examine members of the military through a looking glass that attempts to be a screen for sexual preference. There are plenty of stories involving sexual impropriety directed toward young female troops by men in the armed forces. That it occurs betweem men in the role of superior against women in subordinate military ranks is no argument against heterosexuality. Why should sane people accept the counterpart as evidence against homosexualit?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162994 Oct 13, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know what AK? You and I differ in regards to which one of the two possibilities we're going to have as the next POTUS. What I'd be willing to wager is that the two of us are of the mind that the choices are dismal. And this is nothing new - in reality it is so old it is expected.
We have a choice? I'm still looking for the difference.

At least Romney said the words- "State Right" a few times during the debate, thought I feel he had to hold back a chuckle each time he did so.

So I guess he has that going for him?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162995 Oct 14, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether or not your story is true, it isn't beyond reality to think that it is. OTOH, it isn't a valid argument against a policy that doesn't examine members of the military through a looking glass that attempts to be a screen for sexual preference. There are plenty of stories involving sexual impropriety directed toward young female troops by men in the armed forces. That it occurs betweem men in the role of superior against women in subordinate military ranks is no argument against heterosexuality. Why should sane people accept the counterpart as evidence against homosexualit?
The only issue/concern I see with the tossing of DADT is the effect it will have on housing.

We know that homosexuals have served honorably for, well, forever. So one is hard pressed to find any reason why one should be allowed to serve openly.

The only part which concerned me was the housing of troops. In Basic there are many troops housed in open bays together. In that situation we separate male from female for obvious reasons. We do the same in the dormitories and tents.

This was simple when gender was the only issue, as sexual orientation was assumed- albeit foolishly. The answer isn't as simple when we are dealing with homosexuality. How should they be segregated? Or should they?

I don't really know the answer to this question, and one could say since there have been no issues, publicly at least, that it is a non-issue. But I am not so sure that the lack of issues doesn't have more to do with homosexuals self-employing their own DADT policy?

But I do agree that sexual harassment occurs in both the heterosexual and homosexual community, and is not an argument either for or against this policy. But it did seem simpler when the answer was simply the separation of the sexes, which could be employed to at least attempt to quell and head off the issue before it occurred.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162996 Oct 14, 2012
****We know that homosexuals have served honorably for, well, forever. So one is hard pressed to find any reason why one should be allowed to serve openly.****

Should have read:

We know that homosexuals have served honorably for, well, forever. So one is hard pressed to find any reason why one shouldn't be allowed to serve openly.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#162997 Oct 14, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The only issue/concern I see with the tossing of DADT is the effect it will have on housing.
We know that homosexuals have served honorably for, well, forever. So one is hard pressed to find any reason why one should be allowed to serve openly.
The only part which concerned me was the housing of troops. In Basic there are many troops housed in open bays together. In that situation we separate male from female for obvious reasons. We do the same in the dormitories and tents.
This was simple when gender was the only issue, as sexual orientation was assumed- albeit foolishly. The answer isn't as simple when we are dealing with homosexuality. How should they be segregated? Or should they?
I don't really know the answer to this question, and one could say since there have been no issues, publicly at least, that it is a non-issue. But I am not so sure that the lack of issues doesn't have more to do with homosexuals self-employing their own DADT policy?
But I do agree that sexual harassment occurs in both the heterosexual and homosexual community, and is not an argument either for or against this policy. But it did seem simpler when the answer was simply the separation of the sexes, which could be employed to at least attempt to quell and head off the issue before it occurred.
In my opinion, there is no need for separate berthing just because someone is Gay or Lesbian......that would be the same thing as when we separated troops based solely on skin color.

Gay men and straight men should be grown-up enough to handle the situation, besides.....it's not like Gay men are attracted or will hit on straight men and if straight men think they will, well, they shouldn't flatter themselves!!!

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#162998 Oct 14, 2012
So after he finally got my pants off, he said "Oh my God ! You aint stickin that huge thing in me !" And then he left.

And that ended our date.

:(

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#162999 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>\
read slower
eventually when gay rights are actaully recognized by the federal government, they will add it to the constiution...
but many states will join those that have already made the plunge. like mass and vt.
it is great to see barney frank getting married as he retires from a long career of public service.
dont fight it, it is just natural for people to be different..
I beg you show tolerance.
no?
then enjoy irrelevancy, as those who just want to be treated the same as you, fight for(and gain) their rights!!
it has happened before, and equality will happen again..
why do you fools on the right, have to be on the wrong side of history all the time....
just look at all the progress on gay rights in the past 20 years!
huge!!
same with medicinal marijuana.
attitudes are changing....
dont be left behind!
There is no such thing as gay 'marriage'.

It is a simple denial of reality,

A foolish attempt to impose an imposter relationship on the single and only birthplace of every single other type of relationship.

Attitudes change for right and wrong reasons and there will always be idiots.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#163000 Oct 14, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion, there is no need for separate berthing just because someone is Gay or Lesbian......that would be the same thing as when we separated troops based solely on skin color.
Gay men and straight men should be grown-up enough to handle the situation, besides.....it's not like Gay men are attracted or will hit on straight men and if straight men think they will, well, they shouldn't flatter themselves!!!
So you are saying that homosexuals don't have the same degree of sexual attraction that heterosexuals do? So it is fair that heterosexuals are segregated, but okay for homosexuals to not be?

You are saying that there is no risk of rape by homosexuals (in a overtly authoritarian setting), like the current problem in the military with heterosexual rape?

In my opinion, you are a lying idiot. Your gay twirl puts our nation and military at risk.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#163001 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that homosexuals don't have the same degree of sexual attraction that heterosexuals do? So it is fair that heterosexuals are segregated, but okay for homosexuals to not be?
You are saying that there is no risk of rape by homosexuals (in a overtly authoritarian setting), like the current problem in the military with heterosexual rape?
In my opinion, you are a lying idiot. Your gay twirl puts our nation and military at risk.
It's fair that the genders are segregated, if that was what you were getting at!!!

Did my post mention rape at all? I don't believe it did!!!

I know.....everyone who makes a post that you don't like makes it some gay twist or twirl.....what a true idiot you are!!!

Gays and Lesbians DON'T put our Nation or our Military at Risk.......but people like you should be considered a threat to National Security!!!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 4 hr Brett Weir 15,965
Earthquake study drifts as scientists seek money 7 hr Valley Gurl 1
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 9 hr Duh 5,015
kings richards fair 15 hr claudia martin 1
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 15 hr napalmers 7,933
hi .koi hai ...plz contact me on sk636657@gmail... Fri samkhan123 1
Beam me up Scottie Aug 29 guest 123
•••

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 ]
•••