Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201808 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.

SpamOlater

Monrovia, CA

#130686 Feb 28, 2012
SpamOlater also removes RUST.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130687 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
Yes, you always assume bad dads and good moms. You hate men.


I often make comments about crappy mothers. So do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or do you just not bother to read the reply's to your increasingly long winded rants?
Reality wrote:
So its a woman's choice to have the baby on her own and have the PUBLIC fund it? That's your position?
It's not my position it's the law. My position, since you asked is that a woman who decides to keep a child she can not support physically or emotionally is nine times out of ten incompetent to parent. However that does not mean that we as society should turn our backs on the child. However I also think that subsequent pregnancies (except in cases of rape or incest) should NOT be subsidized by additional benefits.

And actually, this makes a pretty good case against polygamy since the (well documented) social costs of polygamy are quite high. Domestic battering, forced marriages and sexual abuse of minor girls, welfare fraud and tax fraud and lack of educational opportunities are rampant in polygamist communities.

One of my biggest issues with polygamist having children. Widespread reliance on welfare and the unusually high levels of CHILD POVERTY.

The TV series "Big Love" aside, according to the 1997 U.S. Census there are areas in Utah EVERY school-age child is living below the poverty level, The legal wife is declares on a mans taxes but the other wives as "single mothers" ofter get benefits including cash assistance, food stamps and free medical care for them selves and multiple children. Medicaid pays for more than 1/3 of the babies born in Utah.

Oh dear, it looks like I just built a pretty strong case, at least where CHILDREN are concerned for there being a "compelling government interest" to justify existing laws against polygamy.

But Frank, you can still have all the husbands and wives you want as long as you agree not to breed.

The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130688 Feb 28, 2012
Strel wrote:
Technically...I am not so sure polygamy should be illegal.

I think it's a crazy idea myself, as one woman is plenty trouble enough if you pick them like I do,

but illegal? Why, exactly?
One of my biggest issues with polygamist having children. is the widespread reliance on welfare and the unusually high levels of CHILD POVERTY.

The TV series "Big Love" aside, according to the 1997 U.S. Census there are areas in Utah EVERY school-age child is living below the poverty level, Assuming he even work, the legal wife is declared on a man's taxes but the other wives as "single mothers" often get benefits including cash assistance, food stamps and free medical care for them selves and multiple children. Medicaid pays for more than 1/3 of the babies born in Utah.

We have a larger that average family and we support our children without any assistance. IMO if a man want eight wives and 32 kids, he needs to be able to support eight wives and 32 kids.

No one has a right to expect taxpayers to pay the cost of their religious convictions.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130690 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic blather... Does that make my position that marriage should be allowed for every consenting adult that wants it wrong? Of course not. Does that make your position that some groups don't deserve equal rights correct? Of course not. Try again.


I don't need to try again because I don't give a crap how many husbands and wives you have in you dreams.

I have already made a pretty good case against you idiotic off topic argument.

And you have become tiresome and repetitive.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130691 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an atrocious example of ignorance and bigotry against group marriage. Despicable. If this hateful ignorance were used against same sex marriage it would make you scream bloody murder.
Except the case I was making, that high rates of social service fraud, resource abuse and child poverty is very well documented among polygamist in Utah.

The same case CAN NOT be made for same sex marriage so your "argument" is untenable.

Care to try again?

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#130692 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"Domestic partnership, gay marriage....whatever you want to call it.....GO FOR IT! It's YOUR baby! It will NEVER EVER be the same as straight marriage! NOBODY gives a rats azz!!!!!!"
See how that works?
Jokes on you ....we have it!ROTFL
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130693 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
P.S. If you think I am also the poster "Reality" you're really dumb. But fine, it makes your responses to both of us extra stupid.
Your kidding right? I was just acknowledging your right to marry as many men and women as will have you, which at last count was ZERO.

PS: You could not write posts as articulate has "Reality" has of your life depended on it.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130694 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"Domestic partnership, gay marriage....whatever you want to call it.....GO FOR IT! It's YOUR baby! It will NEVER EVER be the same as straight marriage! NOBODY gives a rats azz!!!!!!"
See how that works?
So YOU have been posting here pretty much non-stop for the past few day because You don't give a rat's azz? OK then...
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130696 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
to them Polygamy is a calling from god...
Then they should be responsible enough to not bring children into a world of POVERTY by making sure they can SUPPORT the children they make the same way I support the child I made.

Simple enough.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130698 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
You hate men.
Reality wrote:
I don't think you hate anyone
Um...Do try to keep up with your own comments!
Rules Of Evidence

Livermore, CA

#130702 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Your kidding right? I was just acknowledging your right to marry as many men and women as will have you, which at last count was ZERO.
PS: You could not write posts as articulate has "Reality" has of your life depended on it.
Oopsey daisy! LOL,It seems ratzo rizzo's posts go POOF! Praise and hallelujah! It seems even the Moderators agree that all his posts are off topic B.S.? Yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk!!! Now,any bets as to when the stay on prop 8 in California is lifted? It's only a matter of time!
Winston Smith

Franklinville, NJ

#130703 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, I do, but a decision to have the child knowing there would be no father present actually places no value on the effort required to raise a child.
We ignore the father role and equate it to merely "paying up".
Why do we give the mother the choice to have a baby without a daddy? As Lady doctor said, her choice was to use contraception.
I am not right to life, I am just saying that this "its a woman's body its a woman'd choice" is fine, but then leave the men out of it. They cannot be in at your whim. They are either responsible or not.
Let me preface the following by stating that I am a medical professional. I have positioned myself, occasionally, to testify as an expert witness. I have first hand knowledge of how both the legal and medical professions work.

As a practitioner I am often called upon to make decisions in seconds that may have an impact on the rest of a patient's life.

In the legal system the rate of progress is exceeded by leaps and bounds by the speed of smell. I have performed examinations on patients that have had court dates scheduled a few months later. Thanks to the efforts of the latest judge I've been appearing before these cases get streamlined in that by the time I appear all parties have to have their ducks in a row, so to speak. In the past it wasn't unusual for me to make three separate appearances over a period of months on the same case because someone hadn't arranged for a public defender or a lawyer asked for a case to be continued or a defendant begged a jury trial.

Gestation takes 9 months. Finding out one is pregnant may take a little time. One would think a month sans menses would make a woman curious enough to investigate. But that doesn't always ring true.

So a woman gets pregnant and decides she wants to abort. Her boyfriend disagrees and it gets to the point that lawyers are called in. One would hope it didn't come to this, but as we're at an impasse who ya gonna call? Ghost busters? Nope, an attorney.

A day in court is scheduled. All the boyfriend's lawyer needs to do to "win" is to stall until it is too late. Right off the bat it isn't hard to predict that the lawyers won't be contacted until the second month is up, at least. Now we need a hearing. The dockets are full so we'll watch another month pass.

I don't think this is out of the realm of possibility in our litigious society.

There is a built in problem when the legal system becomes intertwined with the practice of medicine while a medical case is in progress.

So, how are you going to make the decision? Who gets final say in a 50/50 dispute. Should a woman be forced, against her will, to bear nine months of pregnancy, parturition, and post partum medical issues?
Winston Smith

Franklinville, NJ

#130704 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>

We ignore the father role and equate it to merely "paying up".
That isn't necessarily a fair assessment about exactly who is ignoring the father role.
SpamOlater

Monrovia, CA

#130705 Feb 28, 2012
What ever makes the world go round, is the sure fire method of spinning a circle in to the ground.
katy

Redwood City, CA

#130706 Feb 28, 2012
Wow, My best frnd ,she just has annuncd hr w&#275;dd&#299;ng w&#299;th a rich m&#257;n
who is a clbrty !They mt via~~~~{-TallLoving.&#1057 ;&#963;&#1084; ~}~~~..it is the
l&#257;rg&#275;st and b&#275;st clb for rich man with yung and beautiful woman and
ther dmirrs to cht &#333;nln.You do n&#466;t hv to b r&#299;ch r f&#257;ms.
,bt y&#333;u c&#257;n me&#275;t yr tr&#275; lv,

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130707 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, after all people should be punished for having sex be being forced to raise (unwanted) children. More important the children should spend 18 years paying by being raised by parents (or more likely mothers) who didn't want then in the first place.
We should probably should outlaw birth control too, since it "removes responsibility" by preventing the consequences of sex.
Any other "family values" you care to share?
You're an idiot. There are responsibilities which come with actions, I am sorry that your parents never taught you this.

Everyone wants to scream about their right to this or that, but cower when they have to accept the possible consequences which come with it.

And what is this nonsense about banning birth control? Is your argument that weak that you need to just toss nonsense into the conversation?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130708 Feb 28, 2012
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.
Yeah, that's right, men are the problem..

Thank you for proving my point.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130709 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Avoid being smarmy next time...
Awe, did I hurt your feelings?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#130710 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
It's OBVIOUS from your posts that you are one of the chosen few who are privy too the intentions of the founding fathers.
I don't see you providing any insight as to why I am wrong? You simply come in and keep screaming I am wrong without any relevant information to support your position.

You do realize you don't win a debate by simply claiming the other person is wrong don't you?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#130711 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
very wrong. It was merely a legal tactic by the Prop 8 lawyers which I will explain to you if you would listen. Under rational review (the standard used by Walker) the proponent of the law DOE SNOT NEED to offer evidence, the court can think of ANY REASON for the law and substitute that reason.
from wiki (to avoid claims of bias):
"The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest.[1][2] Under this standard of review, the "legitimate interest" does not have to be the governments actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review.[3]"
Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review.
So there was no need to put on any evidence, but you did highlight a major flaw in Walker's decision, that he did not follow the standard.
As to the harms, you simply believe the alleged harms against polygamy but not the ones against gay marriage. That is how its hypocritical. NOTE: I dont think the things I write below are true, but its as true as what you wrote. Old tradition, stereotypes and morality dressed up as science!
1. How does gay marriage harm women?
It takes babies from them and gives it to two guys. Women will be raised without their birth mother and with two dads. Women will lose their womanhood being dominated by two males with no mother.
How does gay marriage harm children?
Do I need to post the statistics folks post about the higher levels of pedophilia in the gay community? As good a science as your claims against polygamy!
Not to mention that VT custody case....
a step parent getting custody!
How does gay marriage harm families?
All the above, Plus it removes the genetics by utilizing anonymous donors. Incest will be rampant with sperm donors having 1,000 kids as the news reported recently. Again, is this all true? About as true as what you wrote about polygamy!
How does gay marriage harm men?
Two women who hate men have a male child...how good is that for him? See that Vt case again. They were raising the female child in a NO MEN environment!
Gay marriage undercuts the role of BOTH SEXES. Lesbian marriage therefore denigrate fatherhood and vice versa...again, do I believe this personally, NO....but its the same stuff you pitch at polygamy.. HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT?!?!?!?
The problem with this board is I am now going to get a bunch of posts saying how my claims here are not well founded (and insulted a bunch besides) without anyone catching that these reason are the same flake reasons Mona posted to polygamy and that is the point I am making.
So I ask again, do we have a right to marry any consenting adult we want or not?
Saying well women get forced is nonsense because they are not consenting!
Besides that Mona's list is merely the same as what I posted about gays.
Oh puh-leez. Marriage takes babies away from women? Are you fucking nuts? Your comment about pedophilia is a lie, but don't let facts stops you from spreading your shit.

And since you OBVIOUSLY haven't been keeping up, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there isn't a rational basis for Prop 8.

Suck it, loser. People are catching onto your lies.

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Home energy revolution? May 17 Solarman 1
News Apple's Ahrendts emerges as top-paid U.S. woman... May 5 Max 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Apr 27 Prosperity1 116
Catalytic Converter Theft. Toyota Truck/SUV own... (May '07) Apr 26 Jinlonh 953
yellow cab 650---254----1230 24hr open (Jan '09) Apr '15 jie 22
News Pinay nanny wins slavery case in Canada Apr '15 Jennifer LaSalle 1
does anyone need a good dog walker (May '07) Mar '15 chicagodawg 46
More from around the web

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]