Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201845 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.


Bellevue, WA

#212733 Aug 27, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>Try this, go to a hospital and watch 100 children get born, ask them all if they are gay and you tell me if 1-3% of them tell you that they are?
Ask those same 100 if there straight.... Wow your a mental midget
HR 113 bill 2011

Covina, CA

#212734 Aug 27, 2013
When the comment came up about how David Dreier was behind this mess about to take place in the mountain of SGV.

San Gabriel Mountains And Rivers Protection Bill Introduced In Congress!

In the first week of 2011, Representative David Dreier (R-San Dimas) introduced the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests Protection Act (H.R. 113).

The bill proposes to protect 18,276 acres of public land as additions to the existing Sheep Mountain and Cucamonga Wilderness areas in the San Gabriel Mountains of southern California.

In addition, H.R. 113 proposes to complete Wild & Scenic Studies for the San Gabriel River (North, West, and East Forks), San Antonio Creek, and the Middle Fork Lytle Creek.

Redding, CA

#212738 Aug 27, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen game player.....
...has nothing to do with me now does it dumbass.
Secondly I would think sticking your winky in an 11 year old girl would be considered mutually disgusting, harmful and illegal.
My preference???? Why shitforbrains....might wanna ask next time rather than play a dumbfuck smartass. I like women as a male.
There ya go you challenged asshat. As far as gays they prefer certain adults of the same sex. Yahoo. Let 'em. Not mine nor your affair.
Now go bait someone else loser and beat it.
Let me guess, you hate your mom because she doesn't know who your daddy is and you were molested by a band of traveling gypsys when your sister was turning tricks at the carnival, right?

Redding, CA

#212739 Aug 27, 2013
Sparkle03 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask those same 100 if there straight.... Wow your a mental midget
So you want him to ask them twice? That would make you...?

Moline, IL

#212740 Aug 27, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>Oh sorry, old foolish one, I have to educate you, this is not a "Secular Nation". I bet you think America was discovered by Columbus in 1492 and that the indigenous people were Indians, too.
Be careful foolish one,when you use the KKK reference to foster your hate, I might be Black and in fact I am.
If you are referring to the reading of the Bible Supreme Court ruling, it was the Abbington School District vs. Schmepff ruling. It in fact said that America is not a secular nation and that the court can not take a position in favor of secularism or religion and give either an advantage. This was the first time secularism even got a peep.
When you come back, read my moniker and consider carefully.
Now what has the court said?
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 STATUTES 212
It being historically true that the American people are a religious people,
as shown by the religious objects expressed by the original grants and charters of the colonies,
and the recognition of religion in the most solemn acts of their history,
as well as in the constitutions of the states and the nation,
The courts - in construing statutes - should not impute to any legislature a purpose of action against religion.
[NOTE: We are repeating this line for emphasis, this advice from the US Supreme Court to all lesser courts:]
The courts, in construing statutes, should not impute to any legislature a purpose of action against religion.
But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this-is-a-religious-people.
From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.
This is historically true.
yet our laws are secular, not theological.
Bill Of Rights

Tempe, AZ

#212744 Aug 28, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>If you think me a fool, then you would not be so angry and you would address the links and sources that I posted!
You must be mad and fuming and suicidal, because the only truth is now, and now 37 STATES DO NOT ALLOW SSM, Russia does not allow the teaching around children and 187 countries do not acknowledge it and even an APA president has exposed the lie behind the gay marriage and rights issue.
It is okay, I am a Christian, but I have gay, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Mormon, JW and Hindu friends, as well as Russian,, Chinese, Japanese, Thai,Filipino, Iranian, Persian, Armenian, Mexican, wow I am tired, German, Irish, Black, Puerto Rican, Italian, etc.
And what of my links that you seem to be ignoring that I posted a few posts back from the APA and why the DSM was changed in 1973? What's the matter hater boy,can't take the truth? Hey,are you by chance related to the good Reverend Phelps out of Topeka Kansas? You and your hate sure seem to be a mirror image of his philosophy!

Why the APA changed the DSM in 1973 and the many peer reviewed study's that followed the original that Evelyn Hooker did with the very same results every time! They studied a group of common average people without knowing if they were gay or straight and found that they could not in fact identify which ones were gay or straight because they were all within the guidelines of your average sane person! No difference,therefore NO psychological malady's!Here you go again,scroll down to Evelyn Hooked and the many study's that followed,again all with the same results! So the real question is when do you stop lying?




Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212745 Aug 28, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
It does, when you seek to allow a mismatched set of people to marry. They do not compliment each other. Sexual gratification is not a valid reason to marry. Nor is financial gain.
Stupid, the whole "not compliment each other" thing is meaningless nonsense. I didn't say anything about sexual gratification, I'm talking about equal protection under the law. And if financial gain were the goal, the gay people could just marry a member of the opposite sex to get it. Damn, you are dumber than a rabbit fart.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212746 Aug 28, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooooooooooo......(try to follow this) it defuses your "everybody does 'the anal', your mom, my sister, his dad, etc..." implication.
Got it?
Well, stupid, I didn't imply that.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212747 Aug 28, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you mean "you're a mental midget"
Why should I ask them if they are straight, I can document that 97-99% will be straight. I can also document that 99.999% will have two arms and two legs. What I must discover is the 1-3% who will later claim they were born gay and know it as a fact, or the guy who lost his arms or legs in a car accident, but claim he was born with no leg or arm. Understand.
Next, what we must do is to examine the children who were abused as children, the examine all the gays who were abused before puberty or after, then examine the impact and correlation between the two.
Rose's Law: "Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?""

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212748 Aug 28, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, you take notes....a note, anyway
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
It's a right...Loving v Va.
And so is equal protection, 14th Amendment.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212749 Aug 28, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you repeatedly drag other peoples mothers into it? Like when you dragged other posters kids into it "Go back to giving your kids pearl necklaces" remember that? Why do you act as if everyones mothers do what you do? Do you have a delusion that no-one has class and upbringing? That ALL women do this? You're preposterous.... You might be a ho, but not everyone else is...
You sound like you can't get any.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212750 Aug 28, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of gay people may not have, due to the inclusion of women in the example, but the vast majority of gay MEN do. Don't be so dishonest.
And you know this...how?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212751 Aug 28, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Because religion and spirituality are important, Swindler... Even if you disapprove.
Keep your religion and spirituality to yourself. Rational people shouldn't have them imposed on them by the force of the law.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212752 Aug 28, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
What did you say that YOUR real name was? Mr. Coward? Mr. Hide behind a tag? Mr. "I don't have the guts to stand by my posts"?
You're not using your real name, so what are you bitching about, hypocrite?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212753 Aug 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you rather give or get a bj?
I don't think Jonah1's interested in you...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212754 Aug 28, 2013
Grandpa Dizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU you filthy [email protected] before I put my foot up your nasty gay azz!
Oh, you made a typo, you meant to say "tongue" not "foot".
You're welcome.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212755 Aug 28, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
We have freedom of religion, not from religion, in this country. To keep heathens and fringe nutters at bay and out of our beliefs. Sorry, unless you have some form of Christian-Judeo religion, this country was not founded on your religion. In fact, we are separated into states based on religion. Initially, each state had their own state religion and all state representatives had to be an active member of that religion.
If you do not like this Christian nation you are free to try a Muslim or Hindu nation or another religious nation, like Russia.
Sorry, fundie, you can't have freedom of religion without freedom of religion. This isn't a Christian nation. I'm in this nation, I'm not Christian. I've shown god does not exist.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#212756 Aug 28, 2013
Helpful Hints wrote:
<quoted text>Let me see, US Supreme Court and 10 years of research or Treaty with a non-US island? Sorry, I will take US Supreme Court and 10 yeas of research for 500 points.
Also, my friend, the Bible can be read in schools, it can be taught in public schools as a historical and literary document. The teaching of or not teaching of Christianity in public schools, in no way changes the Supreme Court ruling that we were founded as a Christian nation.
'In God we Trust', now go pay your bills with secular money.
In God we trust was not but there by our founders, but our founders did coin the phrase separation of church and state.

Yes Christianity can be taught along side volcano worship, Scientology, Islam and thousands of other religions believed in the history of man.

So you are trying to re-write history... that the father of the revolution specifically stated we were not founded upon the Christian religion.

You are EXACTLY the kind of person our founders were protecting us against.

We have freedom both of and from religion, that you are ignorant of that fact, does not change that fact.

You go believe your little bible with your cult all you want, but you have no power over us, not in this country.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#212757 Aug 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You play dumb so well.
You know exactly what it means, why the need to lie?
However, I'll take the opportunity you give to clarify.
The complimentary blend of two genders in the reunion of marriage is distinct. There is no other relationship in life that comes close.
It is so idiotic to attempt to equate a duplicate half, that it becomes offensive without even considering the callous trampling of culture and faith that it entails.
Childish? That and more is all yours VV.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) In the future, could you use the word "union" instead of "reunion" when so narrowly defining marriage for the rest of the world? The reason I say this--and I'm embarrassed for you to have to point it out--is that a "reunion" indicates that the "two genders" have at one time been together, separated, and then "reunited".
When you say "reunion of marriage" it makes you sound stupid(er).
2.) No one is trying to duplicate the kind of marriage that you and your spouse have. We don't have to. Marriage has never been so narrowly defined that each and every single marriage must be based on the same narrowly defined set of rules or reasons.
As has been pointed out to you MULTIPLE times, two people can get married for any number of reasons. It can be based on love, desire to start a family, to increase one's status in life (financial), or based purely on sex or lust.
Same-sex marriages can be based on these reasons too. Just because they do not spew forth an offspring is no reason to say that they are less "real".
It is childish of you to want or need to feel "more married" than someone else. It says SO MUCH about the kind of person you are.
3.) As has been established MULTIPLE times throughout these discussions, "culture" and "faith" are VERY subjective terms. Those things that you value in your culture and faith may not be of value to me. It doesn't make you "more right" or "more wrong". It simply means that we do not agree on what is of value to us.
Stop trying to impose your values onto others.
Remember the exercise that I've taught you--about respecting other people's boundaries.
1. Your ignorance is showing. I've stated many times that marriage reflects the REUNION of genders into the original genderless life forms, modeling our roots. The picture that the Bible accurately discloses in Eve being formed out of Adam.

I suspect you remember, but don't like the reminder. Ss couples can only reflect that genders would never exist. Always ever a 'dead' end.

Oh, and I'm fully aware that this is your diversion to avoid admitting you lied. Again.

2.'Narrowly defined'? You are the one eliminating one whole gender and simply duplicating.'H2' without the 'O'. It smells like rotten eggs duplicated. H2O on the other hand is life giving. Necessary in fact. Not just doubling what is present, but miraculously MULTIPLYING the effects. The distinction between the two is mind boggling.

I made no claim of 'more married', I said ss marriage is an oxymoron.

3. The whole morality of cultural sensitivity isn't that you agree with it, it is respecting other people. Something a extreme minority demands while desecrating the majority.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#212758 Aug 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:

1. Your ignorance is showing.
You have nothing to fear, no one is even close to taking away your ignorance crown

You are still ignorant of the fact that same sex couples are married, legally, and recognized on the state and federal level

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
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15) 8 hr Bernie 69
Vote For Donald Trump 8 hr Bernie 8
4 cop cars, 1 ambulance and 3 firetrucks Tue Lara 1
News Weird noises are coming Apple complex May 1 Johney Appleseed 39
News East Palo Alto teacher will face charges for le... May 1 Teacher Goodsomemore 2
News Police Seek Information on Residential Burglar Apr 30 Julie Jane 1
News Community benefactors Apr 30 Julie Jane 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages