Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 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.

Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#144237 Jun 3, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
if you say so, they still were male and female you dummy. You just don't get it do you???? your gay responses are stale
Oh, I get it.... male and female.... so? What does that have to do with anything?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#144238 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
I and over 90 percent of the USA are normal
Then we have the abnormals like you
And the constitution is what gives me the right to call you the abnormal that you are
And we have the numbers to send you crawling back to your closet to escape the angry mob
I would like to thank you along with the rise ho for working so hard at changing normal peoples opinion about you
With out people like you we would have never been able to get the votes in the 31 states we did
Funny that the Constitution doesn't say anything about normals and abnormals, isn't it? Equal protection of the law for ALL citizens is what it says. The government doesn't care about your laughable distinctions of normal vs. abnormal.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#144239 Jun 3, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
then you disagree with incest and polygamy.
Most religions and cultures have also rejected incest and polygamy.

All have rejected gay marriage through the bulk of their existence.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144241 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
we did..........LOL
31 states voted and told you to go lock yourself in your closet and don't come out
Tons of people???
Do you weigh a ton??
Let's see at 100 lbs is 20 people per ton
Using the number of 100 lbs because of the large amount of aids, HEP and drug addiction
Now we have tens of millions of people that will LOCK you in your closet
Um, buttercup, apparently you are unaware of this, but at some point in their history, 46 of 50 states had laws and or constitutional amendments telling interracial couples to lock themselves in the closet and don't come out. Look what happened there. Neither time nor history are on your side. Votes, even for state constitutional amendments, which have violated the rights of targeted groups, have been overturned and can be in the future. Whether you like it or not. The denial of federal recognition of legally married same sex couples (DOMA Section 3) could very well face its well deserved demise within a year if its last loss on appeal is taken directly to the Supremes. There are tens of thousands of legally married same sex couples, with many residing in states which deny them any legal recognition. With the end of DOMA, the federal government will have to recognize them as married, giving these couples on heck of an equal protection and due process claim against those states. All of those votes you feel so giddy about are going to be completely for naught, they simply cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#144242 Jun 3, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no effect you should consider the benefit
of adopting couples in a world with 4 plus million orphans.
I consider the benefit of the children.

Missing a gender in parenting is a negative.

In America, there is no shortage of heterosexual parents wanting to adopt. In fact, there is a waiting list.

What you avoid addressing is that marriage entails the healthiest setting BY FAR for most children. It is the fundamental and natural setting of societies relationships, INCLUDING EVERY SINGLE HOMOSEXUAL!

That fact alone distinguishes marriage from any other relationship and establishes unique rights and protections that no other relationship deserves.
Laughing at a moron

Rancho Cordova, CA

#144243 Jun 3, 2012
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
Here is one is the kind of Idiot who will go to a synagogue and preach Catholicism to the the congregation ...and after he gets nailed to the wall he will claim everyone likes him.....
And he claimed only three people disagree with him. Look how many n this thread think he's wrong. I'd say he's not only wrong but he's a liar.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#144244 Jun 3, 2012
Laughing at a moron wrote:
<quoted text>And he claimed only three people disagree with him. Look how many n this thread think he's wrong. I'd say he's not only wrong but he's a liar.
thanks for showing that you are too stupid to understand the difference between a thread and a forum.......ROTFLMAO

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#144245 Jun 3, 2012
NEW wrote:
<quoted text>Accept take up guns and KILL YOU NAZI FASCIST SCUM BAGS!!!!!!!!!!
only problem with that is that you are outnumbered 9 to 1 and conservatives have far more guns then liberals

But thanks for your nasty post as when it is reposted many sitting on the fence on this issue will see how important it is we send you back to your closet

Thanks again

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#144246 Jun 3, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>Funny that the Constitution doesn't say anything about normals and abnormals, isn't it? Equal protection of the law for ALL citizens is what it says. The government doesn't care about your laughable distinctions of normal vs. abnormal.
really
Nor does it say that we can't define a marriage as between a man and a woman

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#144247 Jun 3, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Um, buttercup, apparently you are unaware of this, but at some point in their history, 46 of 50 states had laws and or constitutional amendments telling interracial couples to lock themselves in the closet and don't come out. Look what happened there. Neither time nor history are on your side. Votes, even for state constitutional amendments, which have violated the rights of targeted groups, have been overturned and can be in the future. Whether you like it or not. The denial of federal recognition of legally married same sex couples (DOMA Section 3) could very well face its well deserved demise within a year if its last loss on appeal is taken directly to the Supremes. There are tens of thousands of legally married same sex couples, with many residing in states which deny them any legal recognition. With the end of DOMA, the federal government will have to recognize them as married, giving these couples on heck of an equal protection and due process claim against those states. All of those votes you feel so giddy about are going to be completely for naught, they simply cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
and those numbers slowly changed

But we are seeing a rapid change in the number of people that are telling you to go sit in your closet
Laughing at a moron

Rancho Cordova, CA

#144248 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
thanks for showing that you are too stupid to understand the difference between a thread and a forum.......ROTFLMAO
Duck, bob, weave and spin! So how many people don't agree with you? There are many more than three here.

Huummm?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144249 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
and those numbers slowly changed
But we are seeing a rapid change in the number of people that are telling you to go sit in your closet
Actually dear, it's the other way around. Other than the recent vote in North Carolina (and no real surprise there), you people have been on a pretty bad losing streak, as more states have recognized the marriage of same sex couples than denied recognition. The tide of public opinion and the Courts have been coming over to our side when discrimination against us is challenged and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it beyond whining. Your place as an embarrassment to America's history has been assured as future generations, long use to the marriages of same sex couples, will be scratching their heads and wondering what in the hell was the matter with people like you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144250 Jun 3, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You are SUCH a drama queen.
And you are a complete idiot.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144251 Jun 3, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you really aren’t that bright are you? The majority of Americans support marriage equality. Do you really think any competent elected official will take a position that will absolutely hurt their political career? You would fall far short of the 2/3 majority necessary to amend, to say nothing of the ¾ of state legislature would have to approve the measure.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the LARGE number of States which have had their citizens pass marriage amendments to their State Constitutions, we aren't that far from the 3/4th's required.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144252 Jun 3, 2012
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>think so huh?
That is about the only statement this person has made that I agree with. The NAACP is hardly interested in helping minorities, though they put on a good facade.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144253 Jun 3, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Vote all you like. I can wait for SCOTUS to rule.
I guess you haven't read the Constitution. 31 States have Constitutional Amendments preventing same sex marriage, if only 7 more States follow suit that is all it would take to ratify a Constitutional Amendment, then the SCOTUS wouldn't have a damn thing to say about it.

You better be careful just how hard you push, eventually you will piss enough people off to take the decision out of the courts hands.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144254 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the LARGE number of States which have had their citizens pass marriage amendments to their State Constitutions, we aren't that far from the 3/4th's required.
The window of opportunity to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment came and went with the hullabaloo over the ruling in Hawaii. Since then, there is no longer a snowball's chance in you know where, that Congress would EVER scrounge together enough votes to pass it and send it on to the states. People will have to just be satisfied with their state constitutional amendments, that is until they are struck down as the unconstitutional infringement of our individual rights that they are..

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#144255 Jun 3, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I consider the benefit of the children.
Missing a gender in parenting is a negative.
In America, there is no shortage of heterosexual parents wanting to adopt. In fact, there is a waiting list.
You are partially right about heterosexual couples having to wait to adopt......but that's because there waiting to adopt BABIES.....not toddlers, young children or teenagers!!!

By the way.....Judges disagree with your position and have placed many children in loving, safe, stable Same-Sex households.......and those kids are raised just fine and turn out just as well adjusted as kids raised by parents of opposite-sex.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144256 Jun 3, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The window of opportunity to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment came and went with the hullabaloo over the ruling in Hawaii. Since then, there is no longer a snowball's chance in you know where, that Congress would EVER scrounge together enough votes to pass it and send it on to the states. People will have to just be satisfied with their state constitutional amendments, that is until they are struck down as the unconstitutional infringement of our individual rights that they are..
Came and passed? Have you ever read the Constitution, the Federal Congress is irrelevant, the states don't need them to Amend the Constitution.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#144257 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the LARGE number of States which have had their citizens pass marriage amendments to their State Constitutions, we aren't that far from the 3/4th's required.
It will NEVER get out of Congress, and you know it.

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.

San Marcos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Corinne Hogg and her VA disability - What's wro... (Sep '15) Mon Annonymous 11
2003 Chevy Trailblazer-CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND R... (Dec '11) Mon Yvette 285
News Wally the dead whale finally laid to rest in So... Jul 22 Ed Muntin 5
booming noise last night and this am (Jul '09) Jul 20 Cat lover 36
Mary Botto Artist (Aug '12) Jul 14 marion goff 39
News Trump's failed Baja condo resort left buyers fe... Jun 28 frigginhell 22
Promenade at Creekside apartments Mar '16 lol 2

San Marcos Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

San Marcos Mortgages