Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,161

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.

Full Story
M Ms are

Azusa, CA

#150499 Jul 15, 2012
Mormon mafia is out to get you?
Dottie Sandusky

Azusa, CA

#150501 Jul 15, 2012
This woman is just covering up, to protect herself and family.

Dottie Sandusky is using a powerful psychological tool to push all those feelings way, way down.

One of Jerry Sandusky's accusers said she (Dottie Sandusky) walked in while Sandusky was forcing him to perform oral sex.

Shame on Dottie for not telling the truth.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#150502 Jul 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You most certainly do have a problem with it.
<quoted text>
Homosexuals can marry just like heterosexuals, it doesn't matter that they choose not to- one person of the opposite sex!!
That's like saying - "one person of the same race!!"
akpilot wrote:
What about it? I have explained this to you a thousand times,
And you've been wrong a thousand times.
akpilot wrote:
I know you have a thick skull but seriously.
The Federal government did not take control of marriage laws, there was an Amendment passed which, at it's heart, was to create equality between race. Blacks were treated different from whites in the case of loving, which the court corrected.
And now men are being treated differently from women. Why shouldn't that be corrected?
akpilot wrote:
In loving the marriage was equal in all instances other than color- still one man and one woman. The court actually explained this in their decision but you simply
ignore the parts of the decision you don't like, just like you ignore the parts of the Constitution you disagree with.
Try and understand this, stupid. I know the Loving case was about race and marriage. I'm saying the same basic concept of equal protection that was applied to race in that case should be applied to gender now.
Dottie

Azusa, CA

#150503 Jul 15, 2012
Go toe to toe, see ya later.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

United States

#150505 Jul 15, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

My argument is rational. You are just not smart enough to deal with reason and logic.
Your argument is children should be taught anal sex is safe, normal and as wholesome as apple pie. Same-sex marriage is just the Trojan horse predators like you use to get pass the school gates.

Thirty years ago you defined "equality" as the right to do what you wanted in your bath houses; today, you define it as same-sex marriage; tomorrow, you'll define it as man-boy sex rights.

Larry Brinkin was one of the most prominent LGBT activists in the country and he advocated all the things you do. Larry Brinkin is a pedophile.

If you had an once of integrity you'd admit he and his ideas are sick. Instead, you contort yourself into a pretzel trying to separate his homosexuality his pedophlia.

You tell us there can be no possible connection between his homosexuality and his lust for sex with infants -- absolutely none!-- that the two are separate and unconnected.

But you certainly don't know if this is the case. Furthermore, there's not a shred of science supporting the notion the two are unconnected -- yet you scream to the high heavens that Jerry Sandusky, Larry Brinkin, and Catholic priests should not be associated with gay males in any way, shape, or form and anyone who does is a homophobe.

In other words, you place the public image of gays over the welfare of children.

This is what you're doing, Madam, and it's despicable.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#150506 Jul 15, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Pay no attention to the queer behind the curtain...
Unable to come up with anything which might be confused with a rebuttal of my arguments, you go off on this awkward tangent about a suspected pedophile who happens to be gay. If he is guilty of what he has been accused of, he was able to fool many people, both gay and straight for years, but what does his alleged behavior have to say about the subject of what should and should not be touched in schools? Absolutely nothing.
Reality

Madison, WI

#150507 Jul 15, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
So based on our conversation. You are a miserable Bisexual. You hate yourself for being sexualy attracted towards men. You need to seek help. Do it for yourself. Chances are you can still regain a normal life if you just accept that you like sex with both men and women alike. There is nothing wrong with it, just be who you are. I am sure that if you just explain to your family they will love you for who and what you are.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150508 Jul 15, 2012
Bruno wrote:
LOL .. Real Americans still fight to keep intruders like you from force changing our government. You just wait until the muslims have the say, there will be no more gaypride parades for you and your gay friends. I am an "American" and staying right here.
You are just as anti-gay as the Muslims. Christian theocrats are the reason America is sh*t.

And by the way the 14th amendment of the US Constitution grants every citizen equal right. That includes LGBT people like me sugar.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#150509 Jul 15, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
interracial is a mix of the two
They still are not called a white black person
We did not change the word white to include them........
Woman have equal rights also but we don't call them men
Muslims are free to worship but we don't call them Christians
Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman
You can pick a different name for your civil union
Just a fe
since you want to get technical you dumbass, a black white person is a molato or a want to be ... lol get over it

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150510 Jul 15, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
oslama will not even produce his school records or a real birth certificate........LOL
Don't you have Klu Klux Klan meetting to attend?

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150511 Jul 15, 2012
Archimedes1200 wrote:
it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!
Adam and Eve never existed you retard.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#150512 Jul 15, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you have Klu Klux Klan meetting to attend?
why would you say such a thing you bigot hater ...

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150513 Jul 15, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
if we die out, then gays will die out. Figure it out, it's not gays having babies.
Gay people have existed since humans evolved from our ancestors.

There are also bisexuals like myself that can have children and engage in gay sex.:)

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150514 Jul 15, 2012
Bruno wrote:
why would you say such a thing you bigot hater ...
Look who's calling the kettle black.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150517 Jul 15, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
If men were allowed to smoke pot in CA, but women weren't, you'd have a good analogy.
People with medical conditions are allowed but others are not. So according to you the 14th Amendment prevents such discrimination.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
What about the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing?(I know, I know, that's from the Declaration of Independence...)
You can pursue all you like, doesn't mean you will always catch it. I would like to sit in a smoking section at a restaurant, unfortunately I cannot. Doesn't make it an 14th Amendment issue.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150518 Jul 15, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment says all US citizens should get equal protection. It doesn't mention race.
And saying the "opposite sex" is like saying "the same race". A man can marry a man, but a woman can't. That's not equal.
<quoted text>
LOL. Look who's talking...
<quoted text>
My argument is rational. You are just not smart enough to deal with reason and logic.
I am sorry you do not like the decision of the court:

" 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

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150519 Jul 15, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like saying - "one person of the same race!!"
<quoted text>
No Rose, everything is not a Black issue.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150520 Jul 15, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

And now men are being treated differently from women. Why shouldn't that be corrected?
They are treated exactly the same, neither is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

"Plaintiffs 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."- Hernandez v Robels

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#150521 Jul 15, 2012
skg wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you understand you cant vote on unconstitutional issues. That is the whole point. Look into the issue.
Gay marriage is NOT a constitutional right, and neither is Marriage itself. It is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Please stop this gay tactic of misleading and misrepresenting your position. Thank you.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150522 Jul 15, 2012
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
Gay marriage is NOT a constitutional right, and neither is Marriage itself. It is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Please stop this gay tactic of misleading and misrepresenting your position. Thank you.
The 14th amendment says otherwise.

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.

Quincy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Spring Garden Tour in Long Beach showcases drou... (May '14) May '14 LB Res 2
Quincy neighborhood safety (Jan '14) Jan '14 BDelgado 1
quincy calif. residents (Jun '10) Jun '13 MissGuided 6
Hoopa Mourns Loss of Tribal Leader (Apr '13) Apr '13 ktune 1
Diesel spills into Feather River after train ac... (Jan '13) Jan '13 fukuda 1
We will never forget Milissa Bridges (Dec '12) Dec '12 niikkis news 1
My cat (Aug '08) Dec '12 niikkis news 8
Quincy Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Quincy People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Quincy News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Quincy

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:12 pm PST