Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201811 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.

Roloes

Covina, CA

#170925 Dec 11, 2012
Just drop and run for cover.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#170927 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Because they are a universally recognized, legitimate couple.
Ah, BS, I just pointed out a flaw in your "logic".
R Hudson wrote:
2) You have that backwards. You are a transvestite, trying to make his flaws acceptable.
You can't tell a woman from a man. Guess because you look in the mirror and can't tell a bigfoot from a human.
R Hudson wrote:
3) Yes, I have, you are just ignoring them.
More BS. You keep going on about gay couples raising children, and even though they do a fine job, that's not the issue. Gay marriage is.
R Hudson wrote:
4) We've covered your desire to control the children of others, before, why not tell lililth to step back from her kid ? You'd get cut, remember ?
Was that supposed to make sense? I have no desire to control children.
R Hudson wrote:
5) Meaningless drivel, dodging a bullet.
6) Children never benefit from being raised in broken and dysfunctional families.
Dodge.
R Hudson wrote:
7) I go on about about the children, because they are being brushed aside by you, and your ilk.
Rose's Law...
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170930 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
To your dimwitted self, the answer is missing. but the simple answer is, that is a question, that drives at the point that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equal at all. You are simply a fool that doesn't understand the flaws in your own attempts at reasoning away common sense. As I've said before, keep quiet child, the grownups are talking.
Specifically what are my flaws in reasoning?

That they don't agree with your ignorant opinions??

You gotta remember....just because you saw a zebra at the zoo doesn't mean your favorite donkey Ol' Bessie was fooling around with the dalmation 2 houses down the street. It's just your opinion.

And if you don't believe heterosexual couples and same sexed couples are "not equal at all" then you need to provide specifics because to me at least that stgatement is akin to claiming both mars and the moon are not planets in tghat you're a God damned mess that couldn't understand the truth of things if it were tattooed on your fat forehead.

LOL!!!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170931 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
Later, kids, I'll be back tomorrow.
pssssssst....

....pssssssssst..

..no one cares.

FYI.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170932 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Final note, before I go...
It's like arguing with children, isn't it ? We know it's profitless, but we have to keep trying, for their own good...
Yeah....it's real beneficial for everyone that you don't want 2 loving adults to marry each other.

Thanks but no thanks.

Get lost friend.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170933 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
What an unbalanced loser Dan is...He and Chongo deserve each other. If he had half a brain, he'd be half annoying.
I only have three brain cells and two of them fight each other.

Even given that my IQ is no doubt 4 or 5 rungs higher on the ladder of intelligence than your lost soul.

LOL!!!
Weaved

Covina, CA

#170934 Dec 11, 2012
Danna Cee - take it to the limit, then shut up.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170935 Dec 11, 2012
'R Hudson' and his ilk can be buried multiple times but just like zombies always seem to rise up from the grave and prove themselves to be an annoyance once again as if nothing took place.

It's the same with individuals against marriage amongst same sexed individuals nationwide which perplexes anyone with an IQ of 56 or higher.

Just my take.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170936 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
What an unbalanced loser Dan is...He and Chongo deserve each other. If he had half a brain, he'd be half annoying.
Dan is a big Rose_NoHo fan. Looks up to her. Thinks she's intelligent and insightful!

I heard all those pompous iceholes had a BBQ once. Can you imagine? Too funny!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170937 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
'R Hudson' and his ilk can be buried multiple times but just like zombies always seem to rise up from the grave and prove themselves to be an annoyance once again as if nothing took place.
It's the same with individuals against marriage amongst same sexed individuals nationwide which perplexes anyone with an IQ of 56 or higher.
Just my take.
That 2nd to last sentence is a real doozy!

Just my take.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170938 Dec 11, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me any case that they specifically mentioned gender of the couple having the fundamental right to marrying
That is a nonsensical question. You are asking someone to prove a negative. The fact is, and you can dance around it all you like, but the SCOTUS has never ruled anything other than the union of a man and a woman to be a marriage.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
......I mean it is more than likely implied or was the intent.....but what case out of the 14 that involved marriage as a fundamental right made specific mention of "1 man and 1 woman" with regards to the right to marry?
Why would they mention it? Each and every case involved one man and one woman, there was no reason to mention the obvious. But if you want to get anal, it would come at the very beginning of the decision when they named the plaintiffs and the defendants.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say SCOTUS WOULD toss Section 2 of DOMA.....I said the Justices COULD......I know your reading comprehension skills are better than that!!!
You are the one having trouble with reading comprehension. I was answering to the fact that you said they "COULD" and what a leap that would be as it would require them to completely ignore the 10th Amendment.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170939 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
This all could easily change.
Remember Einstein....once women could not vote. Injustices against an American's liberties will be looked over.
Hey Einstein, I already said that in the post you were replying to. Why don't you try reading it a bit slower this time?

"The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State."

I guess you missed the part where I said: " Could that definition change? Sure,..."

Keep trying Dan, you will get there.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170940 Dec 11, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are in for one sad day coming up pretty quick.
On Prop 8 there is really only 2 likely outcomes
First most likely, the narrow definition that will uphold the California courts in the specific case against Prop 8, which will allow Gays to marry again legally in California
If the court was going to do this, they wouldn't have taken the case as that is EXACTLY the way it stands now.

Get a clue Dan.
MXpilot

Covina, CA

#170941 Dec 11, 2012
A Fox News contributor was punched in the face during a pro-union protest December 11, 2012 Tuesday in Michigan.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170943 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet if someone went back over the last few pages of posts, they would find that you have posted the terms LOLSER and and CONDUMB more than I have.
You use it daily Rose. It doesn't help your argument one bit.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170944 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Skinner v OK was not a case about marriage. It was a case concerning using forced sterilization as a form of punishment for crime.
You should call the court and let them know they got it wrong in Loving V Virginia when they used the precedent set forth in Skinner v Oklahoma that marriage is a "right" when they made their decision.

I am sure they would love to hear from ya Rose.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170945 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the court's job. Why do you think we have checks and balances,
Really Rose? Where is the check on the court?

You would know the answer to this if you actually studied the writings of the founder's. But since you haven't you will simply reply with more of your nonsense that has no meaning or relevance to the argument.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170946 Dec 11, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Einstein, I already said that in the post you were replying to. Why don't you try reading it a bit slower this time?
"The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State."
I guess you missed the part where I said: " Could that definition change? Sure,..."
Keep trying Dan, you will get there.
The issue is not marriage but the definition of marriage????

WTF???

LOL!!!!

Fact is marriage of and by itself is a singular institution MORON.

And yeah dumbfuck....the right to get married to an adult of one's choice falls under the Constitution in that it's a liberty an American wishes to partake in which causes no harm.

You're one DUMB son of a bitch....LOL!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170947 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugly, I said Loving v VA stated marriage is a right.
And it does.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Actually Loving V Virginia did NOT state that marriage was a "right"- Skinner v Oklahoma did, they just affirmed it. Not once does the court say "Marriage is a Right" outside of the reference to Skinner v Oklahoma Rose.

That's why they cited Skinner v Oklahoma. Stop trying to act as if you understand law because you watch Judge Judy.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170948 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not marriage but the definition of marriage????
WTF???
LOL!!!!
Fact is marriage of and by itself is a singular institution MORON.
And yeah dumbfuck....the right to get married to an adult of one's choice falls under the Constitution in that it's a liberty an American wishes to partake in which causes no harm.
You're one DUMB son of a bitch....LOL!!!
Well, that certainly is your opinion, but your opinion really doesn't matter. As of right now the only group which is legally recognized with a "fundamental right" to marriage is those comprised of one man, one woman. That is why there is a case at the SCOTUS.

And it doesn't matter how angry you get, those facts don't change.

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.

San Diego Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Need Black 19 hr rox3x 31
Study Buddy Needed Thu blondebychoice 1
Why are so many cops corrupt or mean? (Mar '11) Thu Go Blue Forever 303
News San Diego Police Chief: We Can Disarm Americans... (Jan '13) Thu topgun0848 3
Review: SelfHelpWorks Wed kevinfranklin55 22
Looking for black May 22 Junglist 2
Open Borders Immigration Policy Adds Injury to ... May 19 Culture Auditor 1
More from around the web

San Diego People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]