Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Judged:

5

5

5

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
No Rose, everything is not a Black issue.

Judged:

5

5

5

Bruno wrote:

BooHoo now I'm a bigot because I chose not to be pushed to accept the homo lifestyle, BFD you are second class my friend get used to it ...

Judged:

5

5

5

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Judged:

7

6

6

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Your "arguments"?
Don't be ridiculous, you broke down hack.
You merely parrot what the LGBT says.
In all the time you're been here, which has been considerable, you've never once presented an idea that was yours -- never offered an original opinion, never disagreed with a syllable from the LGBT -- so don't dignify the crap you swill with the words "my arguments."
No...?
Okay, present one argument you haven't lifted from the LGBT playbook word for word.
Just one.
I won't hold my breath.

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose's Law...

Judged:

5

5

5

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
They are treated exactly the same, neither is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

akpilot wrote:

"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.

akpilot wrote:

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

Judged:

6

6

5

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Judged:

5

5

5

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
She's finally found a way to stop making such a pathetic fool of herself.
Now she just responds with "Rose's Law" and the IQ of her posts quadruples.

Judged:

5

5

5

Wat the Tyler wrote:

Gay marriage will be the law of the land in California by October of this year.
Washington, Maryland, and Maine will all soon have marriage equality after the November election.
And in New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii there are law suits for gay marriage which will go to the courts.
DOMA is going to the Supreme Court.
By 2013 gay marriage might be legal in 13 US states and the federal government will also recognize gay marriage after DOMA is done.
You can't stop equality from happening. Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. It's inevitable.

Judged:

6

6

5

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
She's finally found a way to stop making such a pathetic fool of herself.
Now she just responds with "Rose's Law" and the IQ of her posts quadruples.

Judged:

6

6

6

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Gay marriage is NOT a constitutional right, and neither is Marriage itself.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

It is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Please stop this gay tactic of misleading and misrepresenting your position. Thank you.

Judged:

6

6

5

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
BooHoo now I'm a bigot because I chose not to be pushed to accept the homo lifestyle, BFD you are second class my friend get used to it ...

Judged:

5

5

5

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't bet money on that.
Another Jerry Sandusky or Larry Brinkin and your marriage "equality" gets sidelined forever.
You people have yet to explain Larry Brinkin.
Brinkin, you'll remember, was one of founders of the same-sex marriage movement.
Well, you haven't explained him and seem in no great hurry to do so. Specifically, you haven't explained how we prevent another Larry Brinkin from adopting a little boy.
Well, how do we?

Judged:

5

5

5

Reality wrote:

Simply avoiding your bisexuality will not make it go away.

Judged:

7

7

7

_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.

Judged:

5

5

5

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't bet money on that.
Another Jerry Sandusky or Larry Brinkin and your marriage "equality" gets sidelined forever.
You people have yet to explain Larry Brinkin.
Brinkin, you'll remember, was one of founders of the same-sex marriage movement.
Well, you haven't explained him and seem in no great hurry to do so. Specifically, you haven't explained how we prevent another Larry Brinkin from adopting a little boy.
Well, how do we?

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Whatever.
Gay marriage is a 14th Amendment issue. It's a simple matter of equal protection under the law. A man should be able to do the same thing a woman can do...marry a man. A woman should be able to do the same thing a man can...marry a woman.

Judged:

5

5

5

Marram wrote:

<quoted text>
You are just a hater who thinks he’s (or she’s) stumbled on a valid argument against equal rights for all Americans.