Gay-marriage opponents seek Prop. 8 review

There are 14 comments on the Feb 21, 2012, CBS News story titled Gay-marriage opponents seek Prop. 8 review. In it, CBS News reports that:

Backers of California's same-sex marriage ban said Tuesday they will ask a federal appeals court in San Francisco to review the split decision by three of its judges that struck down the voter-approved law.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS News.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#147 Feb 24, 2012
fr Get That Fool:

>What's in a survey.....
Dad, mom in home is essential, Americans say
‘Responsible fatherhood’ backers seek ways to improve family ties
By Cheryl Wetzstein
-
The Washington Times
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Story TopicsSocial Issues
Roland C. Warren
Barack Obama
U.S. Census Bureau
White House
Americans strongly believe that having a father and a mother in the home is essential to a child’s happiness, although a significant minority of the nation’s children still live at least part of their formative years without their fathers in the home.
...Separately, the Pew Research Center’s Social and Demographic Trends released a report Tuesday that found 69 percent of Americans believe having a father in the home is essential for “a child to grow up happily.” A slightly higher 74 percent said the same about mothers in the home.
Guess that group that favors ssm didn't vote in this survey....<

The "washington times" is a rag printed by the moonies, and is NOT considered a REAL newspaper. Now, have mommy take you to the library and show you what a REAL newspaper, like the WA Post or NY Times or SF Chronicle is, looks like. Some even have pictures!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#148 Feb 24, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
All the more reason why he should have declined it and given it to someone else. Oh wait a minute...he couldn't take the chance a different ruling might be the result....
Then heterosexual judges should be banned from ruling on cases that affect heterosexuals, like cases which would keep marriage between a man & a woman.

I guess we'll have to have the bisexuals decide all marriage cases in the future.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#149 Feb 24, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about "Clarence", the most unblack judge on the Supreme Court??? Please find another example....
So now you're judging who's black enough?

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#150 Feb 24, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You are welcome. His opinion is biased.....
So basically anyone who disagrees with your lunatic religious psychobabble opinions are biased.

Yep, typical irrational religious freak.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#151 Feb 24, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then heterosexual judges should be banned from ruling on cases that affect heterosexuals, like cases which would keep marriage between a man & a woman.
I guess we'll have to have the bisexuals decide all marriage cases in the future.
Not so, since there are no 'heterosexual' cases.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#152 Feb 24, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you're judging who's black enough?
Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid.
I know what I'm talking about....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#153 Feb 24, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Once we get this ssm nonsense put to bed, no-fault divorce is next on the agenda...
Hey, maybe you can return women to the status of property of her husband too? Take away their right to vote as well, because they'll just cancel out their husband's vote. Maybe bring back segregation, kick the asians out of America, ban all the Jews, return indians to the reservation, and even bring back slavery.

Aaah, the good old days......

You must be a major Cher fan.......

"If I could turn back time".....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#154 Feb 24, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So basically anyone who disagrees with your lunatic religious psychobabble opinions are biased.
Yep, typical irrational religious freak.
Well, anyone that disagrees with your propaganda is a bigot according to you.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#155 Feb 24, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, anyone that disagrees with your propaganda is a bigot according to you.....
No, anyone who supports discrimination against gays & lesbians & same-sex couples is a bigot. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#156 Feb 24, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so, since there are no 'heterosexual' cases.
Then there are no 'gay' cases either, so the sexual orientation of the judge doesn't matter.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#157 Feb 24, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what I'm talking about....
You're a religious nutjob who thinks they get to decide who's black enough to be considered black.

Obviously you DON'T know what you're talking about.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#158 Feb 24, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about "Clarence", the most unblack judge on the Supreme Court??? Please find another example....
So you get to define somebody else?

How's that going for you?

Looks like I was correct. Reading court briefs and SCOTUS opinions is beyond your intelligence level. Too bad for you.
Romneys Airtight Crate

Philadelphia, PA

#159 Feb 24, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Once we get this ssm nonsense put to bed, no-fault divorce is next on the agenda...
I think you'd be better going after no fault divorce _before_ we get federal marriage equality, Jedediah. It will be more difficult after.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#161 Feb 29, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
Just like I called it.
In the petition filed Tuesday, lawyers for the ban's supporters said
''''the 9th Circuit panel overlooked a Supreme Court precedent in a 1972 same-sex marriage case that should have been binding on their deliberations and that it misapplied the high court's 1996 decision overturning a Colorado measure that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people.''''
They also argued that the panel wrongly concluded that Walker had no obligation to reveal his involvement in a same-sex relationship.
"Disapproving of the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is plainly not the same as disapproving same-sex couples as a people," the petition stated. "Do President Obama and a host of other prominent champions of equal rights for gays and lesbians support the traditional definition of marriage solely to disapprove of gays and lesbians as a class and to dishonor same-sex couples as a people?"
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_200...
Awwww man.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bonds' obstruction conviction thrown out by app... 19 hr Cordwainer Trout 2
News Judge returns ultra-rich club founder Tim Blixs... Apr 22 Sterkfontein Swar... 2
News Santa Cruz Nazi salute civil rights suit winds ... Apr 18 Free Thinker 29
News Guam attorney general orders gay marriage to mo... Apr 16 okimar 3
News Guam attorney general orders gay marriage to mo... Apr 16 Christaliban 5
News Court upholds racial profiling injunction on Ar... Apr 15 tomin cali 1
News Guam attorney general orders territory to allow... Apr 15 Your Ex 1
More from around the web