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 (Page 5,864)

Showing posts 117,261 - 117,280 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130588
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

4

adme2012 wrote:
Better wake up time is almost out.
Thanks so much for sharing your OPINIONS and the "good news".
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130589
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey genius, check the rate of transmission amongst heterosexual teens and get back to me. Or you can keep proving you are an ignorant dumbazz.
Getting back to you. Now I know why there is such a high rate of stupidity and AIDS/Hiv among your kind.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130590
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
YUK!YUK!YUK! Bigot and hypocrite!
So I'm insincere is the reason why you are against polygamy? If I were sincere would you allow equal protection for them? And even though you are a bigot and hypocrite I can't call you that?
YUK!YUK!YUK!
YUK!YUK!YUK!
You aren't very bright, are you? Equal protection is promised to everyone by our Constitution. Polygamy had its day in Court and why did the Court deny their claim???????? Hmmm???
The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130591
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Getting back to you. Now I know why there is such a high rate of stupidity and AIDS/Hiv among your kind.
Getting back to the undisputed KING of stupid... My kind? Married, monogamous, females? You know, the women who don't bother looking at your kind, much less letting them touch us. TeeHee.
The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130592
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
How do parents wind-up with a creature like you?
GREAT retort to my calling you on your "ex African slave" grandpappy post and another example of why calling you on your bullshit isn't much of a challenge.
The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130593
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof read next time..
Avoid being smarmy next time...
The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130594
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to the Constitution there is only one side of the coin. It is lawyers, judges, politicians, and activists who wish to train everyone to think it has various interpretations.
It's OBVIOUS from your posts that you are one of the chosen few who are privy too the intentions of the founding fathers. You know more that the lawyers, politicians and 'activists'. Hell, you even know more than the judges. Yet no one is listening to you. That must really SUCK.

As for "wishing" to "train everyone"... The high court consistently interprets the Constitution as a LIVING document, so it seems to me that this "wish" has been granted many times over.
Winston Smith

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130595
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So your answer to teaching people to be more responsible is to remove all responsibility from the act?
It isn't going to happen by eliminating a choice that some would make. I don't think all of society's ills come down to kids having sex with disregard for the consequences. It, IMHO, goes back to the parents. All the more reason to not force parenthood upon someone who clearly isn't ready for it simply because they've made a choice that says so.

Moving back to the meat of the argument, who's desires should carry the most weight in the decision to have or not to have a child? The father or the mother? I think I've made my point clear as no matter which way you slice it, the mother is going to be the one with the most burden during gestation.
The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130596
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, 3 off topic replies in a row. Are you going for a record?
A record? Only if we ignore the eight (out of ten) OFF TOPIC comments you made on that same page.

Oops! Forgot, we are supposed to make special allowances for you. Sorry.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130597
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't very bright, are you? Equal protection is promised to everyone by our Constitution. Polygamy had its day in Court and why did the Court deny their claim???????? Hmmm???
Because Mona Lott hates polygamists? YUK!YUK!YUK!

Yeah yeah, SCOTUS Schmotus! I'm not asking you "Why isn't polygamy legal or should it be?". Get that? That's NOT my question. Let in sink in so you don't give me the same old reply, dipshit.

My question is why do YOU support same sex marriage and why don't YOU support polygamy.

Does me asking that question make you angry?

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130598
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

JohnInCA wrote:
California voters voted for segregation by referendum too. Should that have been kept around because it was the "will of the people" as well?
No! The Founders and Framers never intended for the majority to vote minority rights out of existence. They wrote into the Constitution protections for minority populations.

In the State of California, the State Constitution allows for only a 50%+ 1 vote to strip rights away, in violation against the Federal Constitution. It's that flaw in the State Constitution that allowed Prop 8 and in the past, the removal of rights against Chinese, Japanese, Asians in general, Blacks and Native Americans. It has been lamented, but never fixed.

Invariably, it is the Courts that always fix the error.

Eric
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130599
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

5

4

3

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you check with SCOTUS, dumbass? You know they have already ruled on polygamy. Why are you still whining about it? Or do you still think another court can overrule SCOTUS?
Do you mean the same SCOTUS that has already said no federal right to gay marriage?

"Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972 the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent,[2] though the extent of its precedential effect has been subject to debate.[3]"

just saying, at least be consistent.
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130600
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
If she'd have been sharing it with me I'd have been concerned enough to have taken care of birth control so we'd not be having this discussion.
If the two of us have been irresponsible she still is the one out of the two of us that is going to bear all the burden of the pregnancy. That, IMHO, ought to have a great deal of weight in the matter.
Depending upon what source you believe the human body is made up of 10 to 100 trillion cells. So sperm boy has 1 cell out of her 10 trillion that are going to be busy nurturing his haploid contribution. So I'll grant him an equal fraction of control.
how financially responsible are they either way?
EQUALLY?
All I am saying is that if its her choice alone, it should be her consequences alone. You cant give her the choice and him the bill. That's all i am saying.
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130601
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
No! The Founders and Framers never intended for the majority to vote minority rights out of existence. They wrote into the Constitution protections for minority populations.
you are confusing legislation with a constitutional amendment which by definition cannot conflict with the constitution.

You also misinterpret the way authority passes from the state to the federal govt, and not the other way around. The entire US constitution does not apply to the states. Even the whole bill of rights does not.

As you say, CA has its own folly here, but that does not make what you said an accurate statement of the law.

Like science, with the law, words have precise meanings which you seem to bowl over.
The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130602
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean the same SCOTUS that has already said no federal right to gay marriage?
"Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972 the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent,[2] though the extent of its precedential effect has been subject to debate.[3]"
just saying, at least be consistent.
Um...40 years ago... Just saying.
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130603
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

3

The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
You know the old saying, "Don't be a silly put a rubber on your willy"? Men have a choice they just meed to make it BEFORE they deposit the baby batter.
so the man has a choice to avoid the pregnancy (as if she doesn't have that SAME choice), but once it occurs he out of luck and she calls the shots? just start paying without any say? This is FAIR to you?

Can't you see that her SAME choice to avoid the pregnancy is what entitles him to a say over the baby even though its in her body?
Reality

Jericho, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130604
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

5

3

3

The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. Men who wish to avoid fatherhood but do not take precautions before hand and then whine about their "right's" after the fact really piss me off.
"WOMEN who wish to avoid MOTHERhood but do not take precautions before hand and then whine about their "right's" after the fact really piss me off."

See what I mean?
The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130605
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
how financially responsible are they either way?
EQUALLY?
All I am saying is that if its her choice alone, it should be her consequences alone. You cant give her the choice and him the bill. That's all i am saying.
Men have CHOICES too. Don't want to be a daddy? Use a CONDOM. All I am saying is the SOLUTION is THAT simple.

The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130606
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"WOMEN who wish to avoid MOTHERhood but do not take precautions before hand and then whine about their "right's" after the fact really piss me off."
See what I mean?
No, not really. Your argument was that the women have all the control. All I did was point out that MEN have OPTIONS too. And if they do not want to be fathers they need to take measures to make sure it doesn't happen.
The Lady Doctor

Portland, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130607
Feb 28, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
so the man has a choice to avoid the pregnancy (as if she doesn't have that SAME choice), but once it occurs he out of luck and she calls the shots? just start paying without any say? This is FAIR to you?
Can't you see that her SAME choice to avoid the pregnancy is what entitles him to a say over the baby even though its in her body?
I did not say anything about the woman's choice. And this might be a huge shock to you but women can and do get pregnant to trap men. Yes it's mess up and wrong but it's also amazing to me that men have not wised up.

As for those women that get pregnant because they are too irresponsible to use birth control and then decide to have an abortion. Are these women fit to PARENT? Should they be forced to have children as PUNISHMENT? I don't think so.

And don't even get me started on the ones who need DNA testing to figure out who the baby daddy is!

As for men payong for the "choice" a woman makes being fair... What can I say? Life isn't always fair but kids always have to be feed and clothed.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 117,261 - 117,280 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••

Redwood City News Video

•••
•••

Redwood City Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••