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.

marv

Long Beach, CA

#195994 Jun 13, 2013
whaa??
Match points

Covina, CA

#195995 Jun 13, 2013
Is that Colorado burning again?
laughing man

Luton, UK

#195996 Jun 14, 2013
By Popular Vote wrote:
<quoted text>
What a whacked out second class conspiracy theorist says! 1.Maine 2. Maryland 3.Washington state,ALL passed marriage equality by POPULAR vote! YOU have no proof what so ever that these votes were rigged! NONE! I suppose our own government flew those planes into the world trade center now didn't they according to your psychotic mind? You are a common garden variety knuckle dragging buffoon who has not one shred of proof or you would have posted it! YOU got squat! And just curious,why did you post a profile pic of the rear end of your dog anyway? You are one butt ugly mo fo,but it does show what a dark and bigoted soul you have! Oh,and California by the end of the month! Equality marches on loser boy! Have you washed that blood off your hands from contributing to your gay bosses demise? I can imagine him reading the hate you post and rolling over in his grave! With friends like you who needs enemy's?
Rise and shine, imbeciles!!!!(And it's spelled "enemies", Brainiac. Know thy Enemy, and know thy Kings Englishe).

I found a little jewel I'd like to share this morning with all you cretins who keep shouting from the dunghills "The Common Man art with Us!!!!" and crap like "The Supremes are gonna sing OUR song!!!!" and "Kiss me, Fido!!!!"

It has to do with one of your favorite mantras: "discrimination" (in this case, against a white female, which the N.O.W. Sows have been deadly silent about).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/...

"More than a century ago, humorist Finley Peter Dunne observed that,“No matter whether the Constitution follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns,” colorfully observing that justices have tailored their interpretations of the law to follow social and political trends and accommodate public opinion. The observation remains valid today,...."

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#195997 Jun 14, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
As was SSM, a few years ago. The same dilemma, separated by time. All while Polygamy has more legitimacy than SSM.
Then you and Frankie Rizzo have your work cut out for you....get out there and fight for your right to Polygamy!! Get back to us when you've finished. NOT before then. LOL
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#195998 Jun 14, 2013
Keeshh wrote:
•Blacks and Hispanics “get involved in more violent crime.”
•A death sentence is a service to defendants because it allows them to make peace with God.
•Defenses offered in capital cases, including mental retardation and systemic racism, are “red herrings.”
•Mexicans would rather be on death row in the U.S. than in prison in Mexico.
These statements show a clear bias and bigotry and are very troubling for a sitting judge. Civil rights organizations have filed a complaint with the Fifth Circuit claiming Jones violated ethical standards applicable to federal judges under the Code of Conduct for United States judges.
Your point ??????
laughing man

Luton, UK

#195999 Jun 14, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point ??????
Jeez, Brutus, if it doesn't make sense, then it's most likely one of the Lowbrows y'all keep bragging are supporting you.

*snicker*
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#196000 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact 11) Big D is a lying jackass.
Fact (11) Frank Rizzoto is "GAY"
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#196001 Jun 14, 2013
Can we all just get along??
Bruno

Redondo Beach, CA

#196002 Jun 14, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeez, Brutus, if it doesn't make sense, then it's most likely one of the Lowbrows y'all keep bragging are supporting you.
*snicker*
Huh ????
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196003 Jun 14, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we've tried to hang onto rationality, but, that was torn to shreds, through the manipulation of loopholes.
Loopholes?

That we accept disabled vets that cannot have children to marry is not a loophole, that we accept people that have had surgeries that make having children an impossibility is not a loophole. That we allow elderly couples to marry that cannot have children is not a loophole

The fact is, procreation is not now nor has ever been a requirement for a marriage license.

You are hanging onto something that doesn’t even exist as an argument, It is completely worthless.

It has already been trashed in court multiple times, it is not a valid argument, you need to try and find a different tack because no one of any intelligence is going to buy that one.

If that is all you have in your arguments against same sex marrage, it is no wonder you are losing so badly and so quickly

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196006 Jun 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Loopholes?
That we accept disabled vets that cannot have children to marry is not a loophole, that we accept people that have had surgeries that make having children an impossibility is not a loophole. That we allow elderly couples to marry that cannot have children is not a loophole
The fact is, procreation is not now nor has ever been a requirement for a marriage license.
You are hanging onto something that doesn’t even exist as an argument, It is completely worthless.
It has already been trashed in court multiple times, it is not a valid argument, you need to try and find a different tack because no one of any intelligence is going to buy that one.
If that is all you have in your arguments against same sex marrage, it is no wonder you are losing so badly and so quickly
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.

But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.

Ss couples can never equate to that.

To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.

I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196007 Jun 14, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
The whole issues has been systematically attacked, starting with the removal of children as the primary impetus of marriage. Having removed this inconvenient validation for coupling, you are having a happy time feasting on what remains. If, however, we return to basics, it has EVERYTHING to do the price of Chinese Tea.
Can infertile heterosexual couples marry? If so, this assertion is down the tubes.
Rock Hudson wrote:
And, do you think that you need to remind us of the fact that anyone can now adopt, even though it is not in the best interests of a child to be exposed to an imbalanced couple of fruits. Children have been shoved into the background, against the best thinking in the business. Opposite gendered couples bring all of the necessary equipment to the project, thus allowing them to fulfill the basic roles of a balanced and well-adjusted couples, from which to successfully raise children.
The reality remains that the state does not have an interest in a child being raised by two biological parents, if it did, adoption and out of wedlock births would be illegal. There isn’t even a state interest in a child have two opposite sex parents. The state does not intervene in cases of single parenthood, it does not refuse to divorce couples with children, and it even allows single parent adoption (in most jurisdictions even by a gay parent).
Rock Hudson wrote:
Equal protection should be extended to all, even Polygamists, not just to a mismatched pairing of mixed up people. ALL should benefit.
So, which is it? Should same sex couples be denied the right to marry, or should everybody have the right to marry? You don’t seem like you can keep your argument straight.

The problem with this assertion is that polygamists seek inherently greater protection of the law for three or more people, placing an unfair burden on the state and employers who provide spousal benefits.

You do realize that three or more is greater than two right?
Rock Hudson wrote:
And, you never did give an answer to my question to you, which was: who gave anyone the right to decide that 2 was the maximum allowable number of people to receive marriage rights? This violates the 1st Amendment. You make a lot of noise about "standing behind the Constitution", but all you are is a bag of hot air, cherry-picking which parts suit you, and leaving out any parts which do not.
It is just the way the law is currently constituted. If you don’t like that then stop whining on online news commenting forums and work to change the law. As it stands currently, seeking marriage for two would be equal, and seeking it for three or more would been seeking greater protection. It’s a basic counting thing.
Rock Hudson wrote:
The question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law. Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage."
Marriage has been held to be a fundamental right on 14 separate occasion by the US Supreme Court. It doesn’t need to be a civil right to demand equal protection, which is exactly what is happening.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196008 Jun 14, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.
Hmm, you are really reaching now. Marriage is already on the books as being between two people. However, I would like to thank you for having fully illustrated that you are a drinker of the Citizens United Kool-Aide and think businesses are people.
Once again, if you don’t like the law, then work to change it, or if there are sufficient legal grounds challenge it in court.
Rock Hudson wrote:
The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due. So, choke on that, dimwit. Using the law to enforce a recognition that is not deserved is demented. As are you...
Actually, the law simply needs to remove the irrational bias already in place. Unless there is a compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples from equal protection of the law to marry, then they should be allowed to do so.

So far I have run into no one on these forums that can offer any such interest.

Auto-clubs as churches… Do you think that makes you look terribly intelligent?
FareWay

Covina, CA

#196009 Jun 14, 2013
Where is the 19th hole anyway?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196011 Jun 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.
But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.
Ss couples can never equate to that.
To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.
I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.
Wrong in our culture we recognize people that marry that cannot have children and have done so from the beginning, it is not any kind of requirement.... period
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196019 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. It has never been a requirement, exactly like he said in the very first sentence of his post.
Your attempt to create a straw man has failed again.
Then perhaps they should stop bringing it up as an argument.

It is no argument

but I will answer it every time they bring it up as any kind of argument, and I dont need your permision to do so.
PizzFrank

Covina, CA

#196020 Jun 14, 2013
Frank pizz off and don't come back you boo boo.
Semper Patrioticus

Wolf Point, MT

#196021 Jun 14, 2013
Yeah, this wasn't the best ruling for human freedom because the gays are VERY militant and are actually opposed to normal marriage and normal childbearing and if they get the chance, they will mainstream gay marriage and ban normal marriage. It's in their charter. What did we learn from the mess left behind by the Communists and the Nazis? Don't give radicals a toe in the door. I can think of several other good reasons why the American people should not have given the "gays" what they wanted:

1. In a Jewish-Christian society, homosexual behavior is an abomination. The Christians will never "live and let live" and will use the law to force gays back into the closet.
2. The gays, already militant, will lash out at the community of faith and will use the Government to nullify the Bill of Rights to "protect" their interests.
3. Public Health: AIDS, Mental Illness and Narcotics use will spike, putting a dangerous strain on an already overburdened hospital system.
4. Population and Demographics: As the "gay" lifestyle becomes mainstream, more and more men will become effeminate and eventually the reproductive rate will drop to 0.0 Americans born per year.
5. Islamic Nations already have strained relations with the US and it will actually get worse if the entire population becomes "gay". Terrorism will reach an all time high with 100 suicide attacks a week on US soil because the "Ummah" will have decided that the US needs to be purged, not just changed. Radicalized Jews and some misled Christians will also join in the "purge" and a general civil war will be the result.

The States and the Federal Government needs to change all the laws back to favoring "normal" and "gay" needs to be treated like any other sex offense, with imprisonment and castration.

Historically, populations in nations under an occupation usually turn to homosexual behavior (yes, it is a lifestyle choice, you are not "born" gay) in order to protect themselves from and get favors from the occupying force. In the case of the occupying force, it is the Extreme Left, their social and political doctrine is Communist.

Finally we have to ask ourselves this? Do we grant rights to any group claiming to be a minority group? Historically the answer is a flat NO because protection of the community is paramount and is more important than the rights of the "minority".

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#196024 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to march in the streets, I simply want to discuss marriage equality without fear or censorship.
Polygamy is a perfectly logical topic in any discussion of marriage equality. Your fear and attempts to censor it away speaks volumes.
Why are you a hypocrite?
I don't fear it b/c it has no effect on me at all. Not censoring....you carry on about it all the time. LOL You won't get it setting in front of a computer!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196026 Jun 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never brought it up as an argument against SSM. You are lying again.
I have stated repeatedly that procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
I simply call bullsh!t you when you lie and say someone said it is a requirement for marriage.
I didn’t say you did moron, learn to read

your friends that hate same sex marriage brought it up and I answered, none of this is about you

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
News China Is About to Bury Elon Musk in Batteries 9 min Chek99 1
Bing is a Terrible Search Engine 22 hr Dimitri 6
Comcast is Worse Than You Think 22 hr Dimitri 11
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) Tue Kelly 299
what silicon valley should do Jun 24 ERA-17 1
News Tesla's real capacity problem? Too many employees Jun 23 MsAngelo 2
Cupertino - Police Helicopter Fly Over Announce... (Dec '12) Jun 23 Suus 12

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages