Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,197

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.

Full Story
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192796 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, if you don’t understand this, then you should not vote.
I could get the majority of brown eyed people to vote on a ballot measure to deny blue eyed people the vote, it would be overturned as unconstitutional ( and rightly so )
Same thing here, a majority voted to deny a minority a right they already possessed, it will and should be overturned.
Don't Blue eyes outnumber Brown eyes?
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192797 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they took away a right, and now same sex couples that cannot marry now are seeing for equal rights with same sex couples that are already married in California legally right now ( some 18,000 of them )
Prop 8 is doomed, one way or the other.
Either the Supreme Court will get it right and uphold it being overturned, or it will go back on the ballot and Prop 8 will be soundly and easily defeated.
18,000 okie dokies rovokied.
brown eye seeks same

Tempe, AZ

#192798 May 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does marriage need a license? A license to do what? Good questions.
Coprophiliacs need love too!!!!
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192799 May 21, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't obey because you hate God and give him the finger:
For hundreds of years biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible's teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralisms. The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft-noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Biblicists practice what can only be described as "selective morality". What they like, they expound; what they don't like, they ignore, even though the validity or strength of one is no less than that of the other. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addresed 2,000 years ago. They enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul's preachings, for example, but don't pretend to heed other, equally valid, maxims. The following examples show the selectivity of apologetic morality.
First, a true follower of Jesus would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial churchmouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:
•(a) "...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" (Luke 14:33);
•(b) "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21);
•(c) "Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33);
•(d) "But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41);
•(e) "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21);
•(f) "How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23);
•(g) "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24);
•(h) A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21),
•and (i) Paul said, "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:8 RSV)
Never have given God the finger. God no longer walks on the planet but he's watching your every move. If anyone's ever gotten the finger from me it's because they're worthy and deserving of it.
actual intellectual

Tempe, AZ

#192800 May 21, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't Blue eyes outnumber Brown eyes?
Yes, by a two to one margin!!!!

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192801 May 21, 2013
actual intellectual wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, by a two to one margin!!!!
I win!!!
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192802 May 21, 2013
Prop *8* Rules!!!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192803 May 21, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
18,000 okie dokies rovokied.
Wrong there are 18,000 legally married and legally recognized same sex marriages in California today.

They did not revoke any marriages, that would have been a legal nightmare.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192804 May 21, 2013
KeS wrote:
Prop *8* Rules!!!
Careful, Big D is going to get so upset with you he'll probably vomit!

He'll surely start pontificating down to you at the very least.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192805 May 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If the state didn't require a license to get the benefits that are given to marriage, we wouldn't be here.
Exactamundo!
sheesh

Greenbelt, MD

#192806 May 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave VV the facts a while ago. He chooses to continue the slander. His deceit is pointed out virtually every day. You know that. Now you are trying to go Obama innocent/dumb about it.
At the most, his words are hear-say. You took them and formed your own 'conclusions'. I simply point out that lack of character and accurately term it as rooted in bigotry and hatred.
But hey, if you want to keep exposing yourself, it's your reputation.
Sheesh.
I mean Smile.
<quoted text>

No.
Smile.
Ah good, dealing from the book of troll, never give a straight answer, just repeat your illogical babble. It is quite fitting for you.
like this

Satellite Provider

#192807 May 21, 2013
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#192809 May 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does marriage need a license? A license to do what? Good questions.
To pay taxes ..

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192810 May 21, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't Blue eyes outnumber Brown eyes?
Let's not forget Old Blue Eyes.....The Voice....The Chairman of the Board....the greatest entertainer of the 20th century.
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192811 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes that is why the wrong of Prop 8 wil be righted.
Prop *8* is not wrong.
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192812 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong there are 18,000 legally married and legally recognized same sex marriages in California today.
They did not revoke any marriages, that would have been a legal nightmare.
Big D*>**.,

All same sex unions are hereby revoked in California. Prop.*8* rules.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192813 May 21, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D*>**.,
All same sex unions are hereby revoked in California. Prop.*8* rules.
You may think your opinion is law, it is not.

California currently recognizes 18,000 same sex couples, if you didn’t know that before... go look it up, it does.

No marriages were revoked, they just stopped issuing new licenses

They specifically did not revoke old licenses

I am not giving you an opinion; I am telling you a fact

Whether you are ignorant of the fact or not, does not change the fact
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192814 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong there are 18,000 legally married and legally recognized same sex marriages in California today.
They did not revoke any marriages, that would have been a legal nightmare.
Big D*..*,

I won in the majority of Blue eyes, now Prop.*8* rules and the former things that have now passed away are made anew with the revocation of all prior okie dokies.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192815 May 21, 2013
KeS wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D*..*,
I won in the majority of Blue eyes, now Prop.*8* rules and the former things that have now passed away are made anew with the revocation of all prior okie dokies.
Everyone understands now that you are unaware of the fact

You don’t have to keep repeating it, this isn’t an argument.

They are recognized by the state, that is not a question. You are unaware they are recognized, we got that.
KeS

Modesto, CA

#192816 May 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You may think your opinion is law, it is not.
California currently recognizes 18,000 same sex couples, if you didn’t know that before... go look it up, it does.
No marriages were revoked, they just stopped issuing new licenses
They specifically did not revoke old licenses
I am not giving you an opinion; I am telling you a fact
Whether you are ignorant of the fact or not, does not change the fact
Big D*..*.,

My "Law" is not an opinion, please do not refer to it as that. Nor are my "Powers of Attorney".

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Google Wants to Search Your ... Bloodstream? 44 min Spotted Girl 5
Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'I'm proud to be gay' 52 min NorCal Native 18
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) 22 hr HOUSEMD 109
24 7 emergency locksmith (Dec '11) Wed maryjaneprincton 10
UPDATE 1-Vivus says erectile dysfunction drug m... (Sep '12) Tue kamilbrown 19
Cupertino Makes Top 10 List of Smartest Suburbs Oct 28 professorpat 1
La Victoria's Orange Sauce (Jan '06) Oct 26 AmandaElise 129

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Palo Alto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palo Alto

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]