Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201881 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#202387 Jul 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution didn't define marriage. And DOMA is an "act" not an "amendment".
If the states ratified an "amendment" then the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 and DOMA would be nullified. It would also invalidate every single same-sex marriage in the country; even in those states that have passed marriage equality laws.
Given the shit-storm that every politician would face if they voted to amend the Constitution to invalidate same-sex marriages, I don't think this is a likely scenario.
They would be voted out of office and replaced with politicians who would then amend the Constitution again.
I don't think that the Republicans have the votes to amend the Constitution.
If you want to see a backlash against the Republican party, have them try to amend the Constitution on this issue. Nothing would advance LGBT issues more so than an outright attack on us by Republicans.
They may fight against us--try to slow down our advance. But they won't go nuclear on us. Too much has changed. The country is on our side.
If the federal marriage amendment, defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, only, to the constitution, would that make the constitution unconstitutional?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#202388 Jul 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If the federal marriage amendment, defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, only, to the constitution, would that make the constitution unconstitutional?
I think I did a damn good job answering your question the first time, given your piss-poor sentence structure.

I had to try to figure out exactly what you are asking. If I didn't answer you question to your satisfaction, maybe you can repeat the question I a more coherent manner.

Is there supposed to be a comma before the word "only"? And the phrase "to the constitution"; what does that mean?

Any amendment to the Constitution would make the Constitution constitutional.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#202389 Jul 14, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you tell I'm skeered, rage stain?
C'mon back and I'll slap you around like your most recent "Uncle" never could. And bring your Momma too.
*snicker*
Ooooh..Laughing boy, gonna threaten me too? I don't think you want to do that pappy. See the thing about morons like you, you always make the bigoted assumption a gay person is effeminate. Go back to TV watching before you get hurt.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#202390 Jul 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality determines whether the 'eye of the beholder' is wise or an idiot.
Just a note; Children side with reality...
I don't know what's wrong with you and Pietro... You're both having difficulty making your points.

Are you both drinking?

You constantly talk about "reality". You define marriage as between one man and one woman as being the only "real" marriage.

So, according to your response above, that would make you a "child".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#202391 Jul 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I did a damn good job answering your question the first time, given your piss-poor sentence structure.
I had to try to figure out exactly what you are asking. If I didn't answer you question to your satisfaction, maybe you can repeat the question I a more coherent manner.
Is there supposed to be a comma before the word "only"? And the phrase "to the constitution"; what does that mean?
Any amendment to the Constitution would make the Constitution constitutional.
Thank you Professor Red, forgot the word "added", but I have no doubt, with your advanced intellect, you were able to determine there was a missing word. The last line answered the question.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#202392 Jul 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what's wrong with you and Pietro... You're both having difficulty making your points.
Are you both drinking?
You constantly talk about "reality". You define marriage as between one man and one woman as being the only "real" marriage.
So, according to your response above, that would make you a "child".
That depends how one defines "real". SSM is a virtual modern western invention, with no deep rooted, sustained cross cultural, cross time, structure. Certainly not in Western Civilization. Hence the use of the word "real".
Lampers

Covina, CA

#202393 Jul 14, 2013
July 2013

The 48 district chairperson Judy Nelson and City council person or Glendora, California could care less about:

"food stamp cuts, moms fret about feeding kids"

She along with her Tea Party/Republican thug friends (old and dried up) tried to take food away from a Federal funded meals program in Glendora, California.

Judy Nelson

Deborah Neal

Deborah Wilson

Gene Murabito

Douglas Tessitor

This is another example of the Republican trash running Glendora, California.
Lampers

Covina, CA

#202394 Jul 14, 2013
More lies Judy Nelson has and will repeat because she obstructs the truth.
busted

Los Angeles, CA

#202397 Jul 14, 2013
Boooo
Forkers

Covina, CA

#202401 Jul 14, 2013
Ah shut up Frankie, your getting as old as those stupid people in Florida.
Forkers

Covina, CA

#202402 Jul 14, 2013
Ah shut up Frankie and rocks in the head hudson, you two are getting as old as those stupid people in Florida.
Forkers

Covina, CA

#202405 Jul 14, 2013
You two old hags have been pizz on ne another for far to long.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#202410 Jul 14, 2013
suzanne henderson wrote:
I am protected by God and His Holy Word.
Mark 16:17-18, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lays hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Then you should have no problem drinking a quart of Draino. God your protector says you can, since you believe, why not prove it to us that you truly are protected by God and that you believe. You can do something like drink a quart of Draino and when it does not hurt you then we'll all know you are not a liar and God is real and the Bible tells the truth.

Go for it. Why not call 60 minutes so they can film you drinking that quart of Draino? The world needs to see how reliable and truthful the Bible is.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#202413 Jul 14, 2013
"Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you"--John 16:23;

More proof that the Bible can not be trusted because it is just plain stupid.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#202414 Jul 14, 2013
Occasionally believers actually do do what the Bible teaches:

"If any man come to me, and not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethern, and sister, yet, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"--Luke 14:26.

It's rare but like with this example, it does happen. Imagine teaching that to children in Sunday school.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#202415 Jul 14, 2013
Biblicists are not to oppose evil:

"But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"--Matt. 5:39.

If there were any Christians in America there would not be any need for law enforcement.
Bruno

North Hollywood, CA

#202416 Jul 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I did a damn good job answering your question the first time, given your piss-poor sentence structure.
I had to try to figure out exactly what you are asking. If I didn't answer you question to your satisfaction, maybe you can repeat the question I a more coherent manner.
Is there supposed to be a comma before the word "only"? And the phrase "to the constitution"; what does that mean?
Any amendment to the Constitution would make the Constitution constitutional.
lol .. don't correct other until you are perfect yourself you fudgepacker.
Mikey

Long Beach, CA

#202421 Jul 14, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Aaww...I'm a....consumerist. This derogatory use of the term is meant to shame me for being able to support myself and my family in a suitable fashion?
No, just explains the self centered and aggressive thought process for a POS.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#202435 Jul 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality determines whether the 'eye of the beholder' is wise or an idiot.
Just a note; Children side with reality...
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what's wrong with you and Pietro... You're both having difficulty making your points.
Are you both drinking?
You constantly talk about "reality". You define marriage as between one man and one woman as being the only "real" marriage.
So, according to your response above, that would make you a "child".
You are the one who claimed that 'equality is in the eye of the beholder'. A position that would make it impossible for any court to render judgment.

You once again are backed into a corner with your idiotic claims, so you resort to gay twirl ad homoan attacks.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#202436 Jul 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That depends how one defines "real". SSM is a virtual modern western invention, with no deep rooted, sustained cross cultural, cross time, structure. Certainly not in Western Civilization. Hence the use of the word "real".
Again, you place so much importance on "history" and "cultural traditions".

How many times have I pointed out the fact that the institution of slavery has been almost universally present for eons on the planet. And today it is almost universally extinct.

The entire world, over the course of a few hundred years, has managed to almost completely eradicate slavery--something that's been around for thousands of years.

The same ENLIGHTENED ideology that did away with slavery--the notion that all people are created equal--is the very basis of treating LGBT citizens in this country as equal to all other citizens.

So, while treating gay people with some degree of respect seems like a foreign concept to some of you Neanderthals, the notions of "freedom" and "equality" have been around for about 300 years.

Asking for, demanding, and getting equal treatment in this country is not a novel, new concept.

Don't get confused again.

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 Just how bad is Yahoo's security breach? 'Equiv... Wed just kiddeng 1
Vote For Donald Trump Wed Go Blue Forever 17
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) Tue elvira 123
Review: Senior Helpers (Mar '16) Sep 23 John A 3
News Weird noises are coming Apple complex (Feb '16) Sep 23 flbadcatowner 50
Sunnyvale Mugshots and Criminal Arrest Records Sep 22 Carl 2
News Report of Possible Alien Signal Sets SETI Commu... Sep 19 Allright already 5

Palo Alto Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages