Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201480 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.

Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182224 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, that's patently absurd, since of COURSE gay men and lesbian women are disproportional disadvantages and burdened by such bans.
This reasoning counted only exist if there were no such thing as people who can only be attracted to the same gender.
Try proving that one.
That's why this type of reasoning has fallen out of favor legally.
Deal with it.
Did you mean "disproportionately disadvantaged and burdened by such" disqualifications to lay claim to a title of legitimacy ?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182225 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like there was no discrimination in preventing interracial marriages, since all black and white people could already marry someone of the same race?
Did you read my post? The court explained the difference, and why Loving v Virgina as well as the race argument is not the same.

I am sorry that you have comprehension problems.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182226 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry to hear that. Was it a hot LZ? Where you in the 101, or 82nd
Don't even speak to him about it. You have no right to do so. "Was it a hot LZ?"....What the hell do you think, you moron ? That he was jumping for fun ?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182227 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, that's patently absurd, since of COURSE gay men and lesbian women are disproportional disadvantages and burdened by such bans.
This reasoning counted only exist if there were no such thing as people who can only be attracted to the same gender.
Try proving that one.
That's why this type of reasoning has fallen out of favor legally.
Deal with it.
I don't need to prove anything you moron, that was the decision of the COURT..

I'm sorry that you don't like it.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182228 Mar 1, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe.
Maybe not.
I might be Superman who wanders the land for days given there are so few phone booths anymore.
Go back to Japan. We do not need you to add add to our "Dumb-ass" problem. And, cast no aspersions on a veteran. You should be so brave, as to enlist....punk.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182229 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
But this is factually untrue in some states, akpilot, and soon to be so in more. Gay marriage is expanding.
Civil rights movements throughout history do not have a history of being snuffed out easily, at least in this country. Maybe in North Korea or China they do, but not here.
Sorry.
Again, that was the decision of the court, I am sorry you don't like it.

And as far as same sex marriage spreading through the State's, it just may, but it should do so the correct way. The way our founders intended it, through the will of the people.

Funny how marriage is somehow a "right" that cannot be infringed when marriage is found nowhere in the Constitution, yet the right to bear arms which is in the Constitution can be trampled at will.

Interesting.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182230 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Polygamy was already banned.
So?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182231 Mar 1, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to look at any links.
Loser punks like you spouting off ignorant statements have more "detractors" than a stray dog in Detroit has fleas little buddy.
Jesus H Christ wannabe, pedalling around Sacramento in a clown car with garish paint, and a calliope in the background, looking for gay blond men to blo, are you still here ?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182232 Mar 1, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumb?
LOL!!!
Everyone from the President to Clint Eastwood want that bullshit ruling stricken.
Funny thing. We don't have racial segregation in schools anymore either.
Evolution my little cro-magnon. Happens.
You've got more lies than a Chongo, on crack, on a Friday "Gubmint check came today" night. Not everyone. Stop your lies, little man.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182233 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>On February 7, 2012, in a 21 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.
That ruling said nothing of or about polygamy, now did it?
Funny, I don't remember there being anything in Obama-care about a "tax", yet the SCOTUS said there was?

I guess reality doesn't really matter when dealing with the liberal social agenda?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182234 Mar 1, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Fancy with the language.
LOL!!!
Yeah....that's it.
Listen dummy....hang around. It's only going to get worse each year for those who think gays should not marry.
Keep talking a bunch of stupid smack, you've got your fan club rooting for you now, with all the Lucky Charms. You're about as funny as a broke-dick dog let loose in the hen-house in Alabama on a cold night.....

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182235 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to try, it's simple. Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. Therefore, Prop 8 did not ban polygamy. It was already banned. How much simpler can we make this for you?
My you do have a simple mind don't you.

Suppose the illegality of poly-marriages was removed tomorrow, based on Prop 8 would or would not poly marriages be legal in California?

I know this is hard for you, but perhaps if you get your crayons out you can connect the dots.

The "agenda" behind the proposition does not effect the result of its passage, it most certainly bans EVERY marriage aside from one man and one woman.

You can belabor the point all you like, you would still be wrong.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182236 Mar 1, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't find your missing IQ so I for one doubt it.
Aww, you're just trying to show off, to impress all the little boi's in here. And they adore their Danny-boi.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182237 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Having seen his wife, ummm all I can say is Dayummm
Yeah, I saw that exhibit at the zoo, as well.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182238 Mar 1, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
They are wrong. And I've shown that.
<quoted text>
And by restricting who whites could marry, it restricted who non whites could marry, because some non whites couldn't marry whites.
<quoted text>
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.
Go argue with the court Rose, that's what they said, and the SCOTUS had NO problem with it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#182239 Mar 1, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What case did Loving v Virginia cite when they stated marriage was a "right?"

They didn't make it up themselves, they copied it from somewhere. I'll give you a hint, it starts with Skinner and ends with Oklahoma.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182240 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Is polygamy already illegal? Why yes it is.
Why would a law then be crafted, to outlaw something that's already illegal?
Please, try to explain how sodomy laws were repealed, then ?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182241 Mar 1, 2013
And now for something completely different:

Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182242 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> the Court.
...Which has been bought out by politicians, lobbyists and campaign funders.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#182243 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there is more than just the inherent harm, unhealthiness and degradation of anal sex. I summarize much of that diverse distinction in this;
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by an imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Smile.
You left one off of your diatribe, K-Mart...

If you repeat stupid your stupid bumper sticker crap often enough the whole world will come to realise you're full of shxt.

It is quite clear by now, you need a massive enema.

Smirk!

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
News Heartland Institute to teach financial literacy... Mon Uncle Hunker 1
Woman Injured> specialized bike Apr 10 JammedTrailBike 1
News Redwood City: Seven-story housing complex going... Mar '18 nita singler 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Feb '18 CDNClerk 143
News Redwood City: Tenants protest large rent hikes ... Jan '18 Ur Fired 3
Looking for family of Robert Silveria JR Dec '17 John 1
CSM new REAL ESTATE COURSES ...open now! (Upda... Nov '17 College of San Mateo 1

Redwood City Jobs

Personal Finance

Redwood City Mortgages