Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
143,101 - 143,120 of 200,577 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#162175 Oct 5, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Liam R.
I understand the source of your confusion. Were we not limited in the number of characters we may use in Topix posts, I would have continued my post on to the zinger. I was hopeful anyone whose interest was piqued in the subject would have looked up and read the entire chapter himself. In any event, you are to be commended not only for your interest, but for the sharpness of your eye as well. I'll continue onward from the last quoted verse to the verse that - due to space constraints - was left unposted:
"I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving.(Psalms 69:30)
"This also shall please the LORD better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs." (Psalms 69:31)
Ronald
Something that tends to be overlooked with regards to those verses is the fact that both the Laws of Moses and the prophets all agree that the sacrifices will continue for ever. Indeed, Ezekiel makes the point that in the restored Temple, once the Messiah comes, there will be no need for sacrifices of atonement, but the sacrifices of thanksgiving will continue. The verses that you quote above merely point out that sacrificing entire HERDS of oxen will do no good if you don't sincerely repent AND attempt to correct the error.

And that is why the nonsense of Jesus as any sort of atonement is just that: nonsense.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#162176 Oct 5, 2012
SpongeBob wrote:
<quoted text>
It's vedy, vedy scaddy out dare...but intellesting too!
Well, just sock it to me!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162177 Oct 5, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
Forget the BS you know what I am saying or you wouldn't have responded jerkoff. you are bi-sexual BFD ...
Everything you are you owe your parents- why not send them the penny and square up the account?
Tata

Westminster, CA

#162178 Oct 5, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are incorrect.
A federal judge refused Tuesday to set aside a former colleague's ruling overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage and said the jurist's long-term relationship with another man was not a legitimate reason to accuse him of bias.
"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said in rejecting conflict-of-interest charges against his predecessor, Vaughn Walker.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Prop-8-c...
On February 7, 2012, a federal appeals panel in the Ninth Circuit ruled that California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex couples from marrying, was unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with Judge Ware in saying that Walker was under no obligation to recuse himself for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion.
So whine about it all you like. You lost in Court. Tough shit.
The judge is queer he got married closed case, the rest he left for you to figure out .. he left you holding the nut sack

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#162179 Oct 5, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
The court unfortunatley was being politically correct but they did find it a conflict of interest how else can you say: Hey judge you are gay and want to marry yourself, so that is why you ruled it as you did. Don't think the people are as stupid as you are you idiot. LMAO even you have to admit, the juged is queer and has his followers like yourself as his support group. Your cult sucks no pun intended
Silly, ignorant child. You should try to educate yourself before making such foolish comments. That judge has issued several ruling on issues concerning gay rights. Some of them in favor, some OPPOSED. In other words, his record shows that he has been using the law and the Constitution to guide his decisions, not any agenda. In fact, although I have not followed up on it, I have heard that he has stated that he has no interest in getting married, so the ruling does not help him in any way.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#162180 Oct 5, 2012
Ronald wrote:
My Homosexual friends and the lesbians are always reminding me that the Republican's 14th Amendment guarantees the "right" of two or more persons of the same sex to "marry" one another. Since the revolutionaries took control of academia, much of the nation's history has been dumped down the memory hole. For example, it is now forgotten that the primary purpose for our Republican friends' imposing their 14th Amendment was to increase their political power.
After using hard earned tax money to invade and conquer our Southern States and to subjugate our God fearing Southern Christian brethren, the Republicans divided our Southern States into military districts.
In order to make their subjugation appear to be legitimate and "democratic", the Republican party's 14th Amendment disenfranchised most Southern leaders and their followers. Using the same means, the Republican's enfranchised their African compatriots, enabling them to become the Republican's surrogate ruling class in the Southern States. Thus, Republican carpetbaggers were able to plunder the White populace.
In the interim, little has changed, other than perhaps which party uses the African vote as a source of their power.
Lincoln was not a Republican, as today's myth makers would have us believe. Lincoln was a Whig who was nominated by the Republicans as their 1860 presidential election nominee.
Lincoln had planned to welcome our Southern brethren back home in the Christian spirit of long lost brothers after the war. Alas, because of his untimely death this was not to be.
Since the revolution, much has been said about so-called "Jim Crow" laws. Left unsaid, though, is the other half of the story. That story tells the reason such laws came about. Jim Crow laws were enacted because of the despicable treatment meted out to ordinary White worker ("middle") and yeoman class women and men during the days when African Republicans ruled the South after the war. Such laws were intended to ensure the terror that ensued would never again be perpetrated on "the people".
Ronald
And STILL left unsaid in your post was the fact that those white worker and yeomen class men had just spend several years engaged in high treason and armed rebellion against their country. While there were a few isolated cases of maltreatment of whites that didn't deserve it, in many more cases, it was a case of blacks getting revenge for the abuse heaped upon them by the slave owners - and by poor white crackers who desperately needed to pretend that blacks were somehow lower so as to make up for their own inadequacies.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#162181 Oct 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
And STILL left unsaid in your post was the fact that those white worker and yeomen class men had just spend several years engaged in high treason and armed rebellion against their country. While there were a few isolated cases of maltreatment of whites that didn't deserve it, in many more cases, it was a case of blacks getting revenge for the abuse heaped upon them by the slave owners - and by poor white crackers who desperately needed to pretend that blacks were somehow lower so as to make up for their own inadequacies.
Liam R.

So, to sum it up, is it your position that the violent 50 year war of retribution the Africans have been conducting against White women and men is justified through the lens of history - as Obama's pal Holder tells his fellow Africans? If that be the case, why would any White woman or man of reasonably sane mind go over to the other side, only to be a participant in their own destruction and the destruction of their children? I know you would term the ongoing violent war of retribution to be merely a few "isolated cases of maltreatment", but the fact is that during the past 50 years, the Africans have butchered (often in the most horrifically barbaric manner imaginable) more Homosexual and non-Homosexual White women and men than were killed in the revolutionary, Korean, Vietnam Iraq, and Afghan wars combined.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/88tkgja

Ronald
3 posts removed
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#162185 Oct 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Something that tends to be overlooked with regards to those verses is the fact that both the Laws of Moses and the prophets all agree that the sacrifices will continue for ever. Indeed, Ezekiel makes the point that in the restored Temple, once the Messiah comes, there will be no need for sacrifices of atonement, but the sacrifices of thanksgiving will continue. The verses that you quote above merely point out that sacrificing entire HERDS of oxen will do no good if you don't sincerely repent AND attempt to correct the error.
And that is why the nonsense of Jesus as any sort of atonement is just that: nonsense.
Liam R.

Yes. The instruction manual puts it even better:

"And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deuteronomy 30:6)

"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged." (Isaiah 51:1)

"Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings." (Isaiah 51:7)

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Romans 12:1)

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2)

"For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." (Romans 12:3)

"Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe." (Philippians 3:1)

"For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." (Philippians 3:3)

"Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:" (Philippians 3:4)

"Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;" (Philippians 3:5)

" Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." (Philippians 3:6)

"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ." (Philippians 3:7)

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" (Philippians 3:9)

"For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Philippians 3:20)

"Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Philippians 3:21)

" For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:" (Romans 2:28)

"But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:29)

Please review post # 162101

Ronald
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162186 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Here is what the SCOTUS as said in regards to marriage being a "right"
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
And here's what YOU said:
akpilot wrote:
There is no RIGHT to marriage
Notice how the SCOTUS says the EXACT OPPOSITE? That means YOU ARE WRONG.
How long are you going to cling to your delusion?
akpilot wrote:
Yes, anytime you can't provide an argument outside of your talking points and emotional response it is a strawman.
No. Any time you pretend that I am forward a position which I am NOT and then argue as if I were, THAT is a strawman. Notice how you even prefaced it with "If you want to make the argument..." I didn't want to make that argument. I DIDN'T make that argument. That's merely the argument you wanted to respond to, so you had to invent it.

If you knew a little more about debate, I wouldn't have to explain that to you.

Had any Milk Runs lately? How you liking the change to the vasi inside the cut?
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162187 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Go get some debating skills, then get back to us.
BTW, if the SCOTUS agrees- as you claim- than they would have taken up this issue a long time ago.
Uh, the SCOTUS DOES agree that marriage is a Right (the ONLY claim I have made in regard to what they think.) They DID take it up a long time ago. It's the case YOU sited.
When your reading comprehension catches up and you can stop arguing against claims I haven't made, THEN you can lecture me on debating skills.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162188 Oct 5, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
It is only because a gay judge made the ruling, it was found to be a conflict of interest and only that. It's obvious that there's reason to beleive that SSM is imoral
Not at all, just bigotry.
Tata wrote:
and that time is needed to figure out how to respond to the expected fallout from the gay activist cult. Leave the Constitution alone it has been written, deal with it.
The Constitution says all US citizens should get equal protection under the law. Why are you against that?
jacques renault

Justice, IL

#162189 Oct 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly, ignorant child. You should try to educate yourself before making such foolish comments. That judge has issued several ruling on issues concerning gay rights. Some of them in favor, some OPPOSED. In other words, his record shows that he has been using the law and the Constitution to guide his decisions, not any agenda. In fact, although I have not followed up on it, I have heard that he has stated that he has no interest in getting married, so the ruling does not help him in any way.
You missed where he admitted in writing that he "moved the strike zone" in this case

Walker was in the closet until he was outed recently

Before then, like you he was maintaining deep cover as a homosexual, he for selfish reasons, which he more than made up for to his Frisco friends his last day on the job

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162190 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
This argument is getting tired and worn..
There is no RIGHT to marriage,
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
akpilot wrote:
it is a legal contract created by the States, and thus is subject to their specific definitions.
If you want to make this argument that the 14th Amendment prevents any State from preventing a person from doing what they please then you have a long way to go. Let's talk about polygamy, how about the right's of private property owners to allow smoking in their private businesses if they so choose, how about the fact the California discriminates against vehicles towing trailers by restricting them to 55MHP while other vehicles can travel at 70MPH?
The argument using Loving v Virginia is worn, and anyone who would actually take the time to read the opinion of the court would see why:
"The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States."- Loving v Virginia
The law accepted marriage as one man one woman, but it excluded allowing members of different races from partaking thus creating a special class. In the case of same sex unions, there is no such distinction, homosexuals are not prevented from entering into a marriage, but they must follow the same rules as everyone else- the must find someone of the opposite sex.
"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced."..."Plain tiffs cite Loving for the proposition that a statute can discriminate even if it treats both classes identically. This misconstrues the Loving analysis because the antimiscegenation statute did not treat blacks and whites identically—it restricted who whites could marry (but did not restrict intermarriage between non-whites) for the purpose of promoting white supremacy. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was the quintessential example of invidious racial discrimination as it was intended to advantage one race and disadvantage all others, which is why the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny and struck it down as violating the core interest of the Equal Protection Clause.
In contrast, neither men nor women are disproportionately disadvantaged or burdened by the fact that New York's Domestic Relations Law allows only opposite-sex couples to marry—both genders are treated precisely the same way. As such, there is no gender [*16]classification triggering intermediate scrutiny.
Nor does the statutory scheme create a classification based on sexual orientation. In this respect, the Domestic Relations Law is facially neutral: individuals who seek marriage licenses are not queried concerning their sexual orientation and are not precluded from marrying if they are not heterosexual. Regardless of sexual orientation, any person can marry a person of the opposite sex."- Hernandez v Robles
And any person could marry someone of the same race before Loving v VA.

A man can marry a woman, but a woman can't. That's not equal.
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't. That's not equal.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162191 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>And here's what YOU said:
<quoted text>
Notice how the SCOTUS says the EXACT OPPOSITE? That means YOU ARE WRONG.
How long are you going to cling to your delusion?
<quoted text>No. Any time you pretend that I am forward a position which I am NOT and then argue as if I were, THAT is a strawman. Notice how you even prefaced it with "If you want to make the argument..." I didn't want to make that argument. I DIDN'T make that argument. That's merely the argument you wanted to respond to, so you had to invent it.
If you knew a little more about debate, I wouldn't have to explain that to you.
Had any Milk Runs lately? How you liking the change to the vasi inside the cut?
You can't read can you? Go away, I have not the time for your childish nonsense.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162192 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
<quoted text>
And any person could marry someone of the same race before Loving v VA.
A man can marry a woman, but a woman can't. That's not equal.
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't. That's not equal.
The SCOTUS disagrees with me?

You do realize those were direct quotes from the court don't you?

You are dismissed puppet.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162193 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Uh, the SCOTUS DOES agree that marriage is a Right (the ONLY claim I have made in regard to what they think.) They DID take it up a long time ago. It's the case YOU sited.
When your reading comprehension catches up and you can stop arguing against claims I haven't made, THEN you can lecture me on debating skills.
I see you can read, it is the comprehension that you have problems with.

You should work on that.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162194 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is what the SCOTUS as said in regards to marriage being a "right"
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)"- Loving v Virginia
Yep. Marriage is a right. Why do you claim it's not?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162195 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't read can you? Go away, I have not the time for your childish nonsense.
Frisbee gave you a whipping.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162196 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS disagrees with me?
You do realize those were direct quotes from the court don't you?
You are dismissed puppet.
Yeah, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,". Basic civil rights are a subset of rights. So, marriage is a right.
You claim it's not.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162197 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
You can't read can you? Go away, I have not the time for your childish nonsense.
I can read just fine. I'm worried about you though. The case YOU sited is the one that proves you wrong. How is it that escapes you?
akpilot wrote:
The SCOTUS disagrees with me?
You do realize those were direct quotes from the court don't you?
You are dismissed puppet.
Yeah, and they say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. Have you been drinking?
akpilot wrote:
I see you can read, it is the comprehension that you have problems with.
You should work on that.
Exactly which part did I miscomprehend? The part where you said marriage isn't a right, or the part where the United States Supreme Court says it is?

Any Milk Runs lately? I've got one next week.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 4 min SpaceBlues 32,457
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min scirocco 151,128
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 min Jonah1 49,468
Paul hits Clinton's 'shoot first' Syria policy 5 min Righteous 8
'Hit the Right Nerve' Pelosi confronts Gop rep ... 6 min spocko 740
Why They Hate Obama (Aug '13) 6 min scirocco 11,688
Support for U.S. overseas involvement jumps, po... 9 min Critics Take Action 5
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Aura Mytha 115,170
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 12 min Freespirit8 255,934
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 18 min fetch almighty 1,099,942
New fear: What happens in Ferguson if no charges? 1 hr neveratfault 247
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••