Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201891 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.

ELH

Vancouver, WA

#144304 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
correct as they are not asking for equal rights
They are attempting to change the meaning of the word marriage
It's pretty funny when someone re-post this stale old crap they read once on some hate/fear mongering "christian" web site as if it were an original thought. Have YOU ever had an original thought or have you always been content to regurgitate the ignorant bullshit you were spoon fed all you life?

REALITY CHECK:

Despite TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE being a "sacred, life long commitment" nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and more than half of children are being born to unmarried women.m It seems to me that we heterosexuals are doing a pretty good job of "redefining marriage" all on our own.

But I guess THAT is OK with you since our(re)definition isn't "gay".
ELH

Vancouver, WA

#144305 Jun 3, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have conceded everything except something I never said.
Smile.
KiMAre, Has anyone ever told you that you are a passive aggressive psycho or that you post are ignorant, ill informed and offensive? Smile :)
ELH

Vancouver, WA

#144306 Jun 3, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
Despite your smiles you didn't verify anything other than that you'd rather orphaned children be raised by the state in institutions than have actual parents.
Don't be muddling the waters with facts, it confuses the dull witted.
ELH

Vancouver, WA

#144307 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
please tell us how you are sure what another person thinks or will say???
Well...in YOUR case I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the 34,145 times YOU have posted your opinion here on TOPIX gave some of us a clue about what you think and will be a accurate predictor of what you will post in the future.

Are there any other dumbass questions you want answered?
Not the moron Here Is One

Rancho Cordova, CA

#144308 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
once again you prove you don't understand anything you read........LOL
Grumpy and I were talking about a specific thread when I made the statement
Please follow me to a conservative thread where not one person would even waste a moment on a troll like you
Yeeaaahhhh, right, anything you say! Look at how you're judged on this site and tell me all about theres oinly "three" people who don't like you.

And about that "conservative" site you led me to, it isn't there , just like your brain.
Not the moron Here Is One

Rancho Cordova, CA

#144309 Jun 3, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm "nothing but a hatefully bigot?" That is quite a leap of faith there sparky. Carbon dating isn't perfect, but it is accurate in most instances. What you claimed originally was that carbon dating for dinosaurs was innaccurate. What you missed out on is that isotopes with much longer half lives are used for dating items that are older than 50,000 or so years. Your problem appears to be that you're uninformed on the methods for dating and how they work. The scientific community is well aware of the pitfalls associated with carbon dating and deals with them appropriately.
I mentioned Jesus because a lot of folks that cling to the argument you cling to are under the impression that the dinosaurs were present during his time. Or their fossils were placed there to out unbelievers or some other such nonsense. After all, if you believe that the earth is only 6000 to 10,000 years (the age seems to differ depending upon what one belives) the dinosaurs had to have been present during man's tenure on the earth (unless you think they're bait for non-believers).
You need a new theme song.
You do understand you're having an argument with an admitted pedophile don't you?
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#144310 Jun 3, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>

You need a new theme song.
>
>
He needs a new head with a brand new brain in it...
ELH

Vancouver, WA

#144311 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.
What you avoid addressing is that marriage entails the healthiest setting BY FAR for most children.
No shortage of parents? Seriously? Are you REALLY as uninformed and ignorant as your posts sound?

How 'sweet'! You are so very "concerned" about "the benifit of the child" that you what to make sure that they arer all adopted by one of those heterosexual christian couple with a stable marriages who are lining up to adopt them. NEWS FLASH! This is going to happen right after YOU or any of your self righteous 'friends' adopt a child over three from foster care....by which I man the 5th of Never...

There are almost on half million children in the U.S. foster care system. over 125,000 of these children are available for ADOPTION right now. TODAY. Immediately

Directly.Forthwith. Hereupon. Instantaneously. Straight away. Tout de suite. URGENTLY.

And while 85% of child available for adoption are OVER the age of three, almost 60% of children who are actually adopted are LESS than two years old.

If you consider "Missing a gender in parenting as a negative"...You need to DO THE MATH!!!! unless, of course, you think that a "missing gender" more "negative" for a child than being parentless and alone.

So...perhaps it's time for you to (at least) get educated before you post and at least sound like you know WTF you are talking about? Meanwhile do stop spewing your (considerable) ignorance all over the internet. Smile :)

Bill Of Rights

Livermore, CA

#144312 Jun 3, 2012
Not the moron Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand you're having an argument with an admitted pedophile don't you?
I mean after all he is one of the charter and founding members of NAMBLA! So you are correct good sir,I mean everybody knows that! I mean he accuses others of being in NAMBLA without any evidence what so ever(Rose No Ho) so I guess if we say it,it must be true also! LOL
ELH

Vancouver, WA

#144313 Jun 3, 2012
correction: there are almost ONE AND ONE HALF MILLION children in foster care in the USA and 1/4 of them are free for adoption.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144314 Jun 3, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Your chances of getting two-thirds of the states to call for a Constitutional Convention are even more remote than getting a two thirds vote in Congress, that's why I didn't even bother mentioning the option.
People said that about the southern secession too.

I love how with all you people the idea that the people might come together and end this once in for all and take it out of the hands of the courts is a long shot, while the idea that over night the country will accept it is a valid reality.

You people need to stop functioning in fantasy land.

While many people are willing to accept same sex marriage, me included, there are a far larger number who are fed up with the Federal Government and the Courts telling them their opinions don't matter- your cause just might be the one that pushes people over the edge, to the point where they finally stand up and say enough is enough. Making you the brunt of the attack, misguided as it may be.
Laughing atHere Is One

Rancho Cordova, CA

#144315 Jun 3, 2012
ELH wrote:
correction: there are almost ONE AND ONE HALF MILLION children in foster care in the USA and 1/4 of them are free for adoption.
Better not let Here Is One know that. He'll read it to mean "1/4 of them are free for molestation".

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144316 Jun 3, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Your correct as usual and THAT explains why the courts NEVER interpret or re interpret the constitution to conform to current social norms.
I guess you completely skipped Article V.

Perhaps you can point us to the Article where it says that the Constitution can simply change because it must conform to social norms, circumventing Article V?
ELH

Vancouver, WA

#144317 Jun 3, 2012
Bill Of Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean he accuses others of being in NAMBLA without any evidence what so ever(Rose No Ho) so I guess if we say it,it must be true also!
Obviously there is a wise and omnipotent 'hall monitor' on the internet who monitors EVERY SITE and removes anything that is untrue. If this wasn't the case then the web would be over crowded with all sorts of nutty web sites promoting all manner of ignorance and falsehood.

For example what if some idiot could post an outright LIE that there is a waiting list of (decent God fearing heterosexual) couples waiting to adopt "children"?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144318 Jun 3, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially seeing as a Constitutional Convention has NEVER been done before to change the Constitution.
I guess you forgot about the one in 1787? You do realize they weren't sent to Philadelphia to write a Constitution, but to Amend the Articles of Confederation. You also ignore the fact that the very reason we have a Bill of Rights at all is not because Congress wanted them, but because the States demanded them. While the states didn't call a Constitutional Convention to get the Bill of Rights, they certainly would have, or simply left the Union, had they not gotten one.

Not to mention, the Southern Secession was in and of itself a Constitutional Convention, they chose to leave the Union and drafted their own Constitution.

So to say "it has never happened" is a very interesting twist on reality.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#144319 Jun 3, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>That's nice, kill off any hope the poor boy had left...
Well, I discovered that little tidbit of information looking at a site about how the Constitution can be amended.....I am not aiming to kill off anyone's hope.....though the same thing can not be said for some from the other side!!!
Dan

Sacramento, CA

#144320 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
are you really that stupid or do you just think everyone else is that stupid
If you want to compare it to golf then let's do that by all means
It would be like saying you are free to golf on the course
We will give you all the same rights and rules that men have
But you need to call yourself a woman golfer not a man golfer
Thanks for proving my point moron
I am saying they can have all of the same rights and play all of the same golf
We just are not going to call them men
Well....if I was a woman golfer why then could I not be CALLED a woman golfer.

Prove YOUR point....you just proved mine moron...LOL!!!
Dan

Sacramento, CA

#144321 Jun 3, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you show your brokenness. Bigotry of religion by trying to judge something you know nothing about (ignorance).
Moses had one wife.
But to my point of brokenness, but not in you; The Bible makes it clear many times of Moses' brokennesss. Murder, anger and more.
Moses may have never existed.
Dan

Sacramento, CA

#144322 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you completely skipped Article V.
Perhaps you can point us to the Article where it says that the Constitution can simply change because it must conform to social norms, circumventing Article V?
Buddy...you're no Constitutional Scholar so don't promote yourself as one.
ELH

Vancouver, WA

#144323 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you completely skipped Article V.
Perhaps you can point us to the Article where it says that the Constitution can simply change because it must conform to social norms, circumventing Article V?
Alas, unlike you, I am not an "expert" on the US Constitution. However my non-expert observations lead me to conclude that social norms have and will continue too influenced federal laws.And base on this I am certain that REALITY trumps your opposing OPINION.

The US Constitution was written on PAPER not inscribed stone

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 2 min Rose_NoHo 368
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 min Terra Firma 24,125
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 15 min TomInElPaso 44,218
News Secret Service chief praises gay spies for putt... 24 min Anita Bryant s Jihad 2
News Gayborhood racism is long-standing, Philadelphi... 26 min Farididdle 2
News Idaho man charged with federal hate crime in fa... 27 min Farididdle 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 28 min Rosa_Winkel 5,015
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 4 hr June VanDerMark 12,702
More from around the web