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
134,581 - 134,600 of 200,333 Comments Last updated 30 min ago
ELH

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151832
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not a matter of 'believing' anything. Your relationship simply is not marriage. They are two clearly distinct relationships.
No one except gay couples who are incapable of procreating together are saying marriage 'requires' children. But the do occur 96% of the time in marriages. 0% of the time in gay unions. See the difference?
You posted that you were a "boy" then decided to become a "girl" (you even joined the girls scouts SMILE!) and later decide to be a "man" and marry a woman... By your own definition your relationship isn't a REAL marriage either.

And though you claim to have biological children, the fact is that chromosomal abnormalities that grossly affect sexual development are in fact STERILE and this is specially true of intersexed MALES.

While it's too bad that you didn't research your "condition" at least enough to keep from looking like a complete idiot, your ignorance has been good for a laugh or two or three.

Here's a though...Maybe you should take some time off from judging other peoples lives and relationships and take a good look at what's in your own pants/under your own skirt)

“Thou Shalt Not Spill”

Since: Jun 12

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151833
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
You posted that you were a "boy" then decided to become a "girl" (you even joined the girls scouts SMILE!) and later decide to be a "man" and marry a woman... By your own definition your relationship isn't a REAL marriage either.
And though you claim to have biological children, the fact is that chromosomal abnormalities that grossly affect sexual development are in fact STERILE and this is specially true of intersexed MALES.
While it's too bad that you didn't research your "condition" at least enough to keep from looking like a complete idiot, your ignorance has been good for a laugh or two or three.
Here's a though...Maybe you should take some time off from judging other peoples lives and relationships and take a good look at what's in your own pants/under your own skirt)
Just my opinion but you're kicking your own ass by arguing with someone who not only admists they were classified as batshit crazy but whom exists in here for apparent attention.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151834
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
You posted that you were a "boy" then decided to become a "girl" (you even joined the girls scouts SMILE!) and later decide to be a "man" and marry a woman... By your own definition your relationship isn't a REAL marriage either.
And though you claim to have biological children, the fact is that chromosomal abnormalities that grossly affect sexual development are in fact STERILE and this is specially true of intersexed MALES.
While it's too bad that you didn't research your "condition" at least enough to keep from looking like a complete idiot, your ignorance has been good for a laugh or two or three.
Here's a though...Maybe you should take some time off from judging other peoples lives and relationships and take a good look at what's in your own pants/under your own skirt)
I never posted that I was a girl who decided to become a boy.

I never said I joined the Girl Scouts. I said I was on a regional board of Girl Scouts.

I was raised as a boy because my penis is functional, my vagina is not. While most hermaphrodites are sterile, I am not (It was difficult, a miracle you might say.).

I am glad I can make you laugh and cry at the same time. If you don't like my posts here, you are welcome to leave.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151835
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Boogle Eyed wrote:
<quoted text>
Just my opinion but you're kicking your own ass by arguing with someone who not only admists they were classified as batshit crazy but whom exists in here for apparent attention.
Boogle Eyed Blonde By any Chance, or just a sissy??
ELH

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151836
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:

I never ASSumed any such thing. I simply pointed out the idiocy of your analogy.


Actually nutbag, all the propaganda and rhetoric you spam here is based on idiotic ASSumptions, ignorance or outright lies and THAT is a 100% accurate and 100% verifiable FACT.

And BTW smugtard, the bigfoot/God/UFO analogy wasn't MINE in the first place, I was just responding to someone else's comment... so there you go ASSuming again... But WTF can I say except that it's what crazy bitches like you do!
ELH

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151837
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Boogle Eyed wrote:
<quoted text>
Just my opinion but you're kicking your own ass by arguing with someone who not only admists they were classified as batshit crazy but whom exists in here for apparent attention.
I can't remember the last time I bother presenting an actual argument on this thread. Actually, I give more though to choosing what color panties to wear than I do to my responses to this batshit crazy asspuppet.

I do agree that this sad circus freak is a giant waste of time as is that other ass licking freak "rednecknancy" or their creator Professor Malevolent and will take your suggestion under advisement.

“Dont hate cuz u aint me”

Since: Dec 09

Lynwood

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151838
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

I believe everyone is free and equal

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151839
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

5

ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
It's YOUR conclusion and hardly interesting but the chances of Bigfoot or UFO's or God existing (or NOT existing) are about equal.
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,(1) true,(2) false,(3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent. See also Occam's razor (assume simplicity over complexity).
And don't forget that YOU are the one who mentioned "evidence of absence" in the first place. All I did was use it to prove your "argument" false.
BTW I cut and pasted wiki because I don't want to tax your mind with complex philosophical arguments. And honestly I couldn't be bother to do more since "evidence of absence" is an AMATEUR debate ploy.
Blah Blah..
ELH

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151840
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on my research the Yupik Eskimo priest scandal involved 12 priests and the victims were overwhelmingly boys.
Look forward to reading this reseach when you post your links.
Prof Marvel wrote:
Meanwhile, the continental United States priest scandal involved hundreds of priests whose victims were almost 100% boys.
Just a few posts back you claimed 100% without any QUALIFIERS ...now it's "ALMOST" 100%.

And this "almost 100% is limited to the "CONTINENTAL United States"? This is childish (and ridiculous) even for you.
Prof Marvel wrote:
In other words, ELH, you've been busted yet again for fabricating data.
Nice try at revising reality but you're the lying sack of shit who said 100% boys...Well,(back peddling) "almost" 100% boys...and (oops!) we are only counting the CONTINENTAL United States!
Prof Marvel wrote:
When are you going to stop lying to make your points, fella?
Um...you're the one who was trying to make some ridiculous off topic "point" and AS USUAL little man, I'm the one who proved YOU to be a lying sack of turds.

Now take your punishment like a man.
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151841
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
...yawn...
Don't you get tired of writing stupid shit? WHAT extra paperwork? And what makes you think all gay couples have HIV?
public assistence pays for medical bills, does it? hahahahahahaha
Haven't you read the propaganda from Family Research Council?
downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L43.pdf
We are better educated and make more money than you do.
Well you are gay so I would expect you to close you ears and look the other way, you can't handle the truth
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151842
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
oooOOOooo.... Catalina.... I know why you go there......
Lets hear more gay humor ...

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151843
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not a matter of 'believing' anything. Your relationship simply is not marriage. They are two clearly distinct relationships.
No one except gay couples who are incapable of procreating together are saying marriage 'requires' children. But the do occur 96% of the time in marriages. 0% of the time in gay unions. See the difference?
I'm personally not going to go back and forth on this issue with you.......I accept that you don't believe it is a marriage.......that is your right......I know it is and so does my State......eventually DOMA will be gone and my marriage will have federal recognition as well.

Please enjoy your week and have a great weekend.
Mon Sign or

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151844
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Singles to the out fields make good base runs.
ELH

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151846
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
SCOTUS ruled that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
Maybe you would like to help explain what they were referring to???
Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
The case overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States and had nothing to do with PROCREATION.

[QUOTE who="Johann Friedrich Blumenbach']
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[/QUOTE]

Apparently up until 1967 interracial relationships were socially TABOO! In fact it was ILLEGAL for white people to marry people of different races and especailly illegal for white people to marry black people!!!

It will probably come as a huge shock to someone as opened minded as you are but lots of people where really pissed off about this ruling and anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states until 2000.
KiMare wrote:
SCOTUS ruled that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
Interesting editing..here's the REST of the ruling:

" To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

" The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"


The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:


" There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

LOL, That last bit, especially "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.", sort of changes things doesn't it?

Now, Since measure 8 (and other state laws) clearly violate the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of The Constitution maybe YOU would like to explain why this same standard be not applied apply to DISCRIMINATION against same sex couples?

OMG...here comes a shit storm of nutty spam!



Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151853
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
Ah, Wat ASSumptions.
The only thing you know about my belief system is that I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.
Wat a bigot.
Look who's calling whom a bigot, bigot.
ELH

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151854
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
I was raised as a boy because my penis is functional, my vagina is not. While most hermaphrodites are sterile, I am not (It was difficult, a miracle you might say.).
You are so very "exceptional"! Fascinating story you have going there...Except that back when you were born your testicles would have been lopped off when you were an infant because it was easier. And BTW, since there is such a high rate of testicular cancer in intersexed people the medical profession has come full circle on this and castration would be the most likely recommendation NOW too.

So, does your (imaginary) kid look like the UPS guy?
KiMare wrote:
I am glad I can make you laugh and cry at the same time.
Cry? Keep dreaming you delusional fucktard.
KiMare wrote:
If you don't like my posts here, you are welcome to leave.
Tell me...how does your tiny brain contain that giant ego of yours?
Bill Of Rights

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151855
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets hear more gay humor ...
Well your mouth is open isn't it? LOL,Close it and poof! No more lie's will come out! LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151856
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
The case overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States and had nothing to do with PROCREATION.
<quoted text>
Apparently up until 1967 interracial relationships were socially TABOO! In fact it was ILLEGAL for white people to marry people of different races and especailly illegal for white people to marry black people!!!
It will probably come as a huge shock to someone as opened minded as you are but lots of people where really pissed off about this ruling and anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states until 2000.
<quoted text>
Interesting editing..here's the REST of the ruling:
" To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
" The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
" There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
LOL, That last bit, especially "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.", sort of changes things doesn't it?
Now, Since measure 8 (and other state laws) clearly violate the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of The Constitution maybe YOU would like to explain why this same standard be not applied apply to DISCRIMINATION against same sex couples?
OMG...here comes a shit storm of nutty spam!
You missed a part:
"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
Clearly through the decision of the court it found that the union of the Loving's was alike in all ways to any other marriage aside from the color of the skin, something the 14th Amendment clearly was designed to eliminate. The real question comes when we ask, will the SCOTUS answer the question the same when it comes to a union which is only similar, not exactly the same as all other marriages, as is the case with same sex marriages. This question is yet to be answered, but what we do know is they didn't see a need to over turn Hernandez v Robels.
Bill Of Rights

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151857
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you are gay so I would expect you to close you ears and look the other way, you can't handle the truth
And you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass! LOL,You've got to be about the dumbest MO FO except for your buddy the Bi-sexual Gayry on this thread! I mean they don't call you the village idiot for nothing do they? Tell us,how does one grow up to be as completely ignorant as you are? I bet if Gayry the Bi-sexual under age tranny lover blew in your ear you could feel and hear the wind coming out the other ear! LOLOL
ELH

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151858
Jul 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah Blah..
Is this a "debate" or an "argument"?

Or does our Constitutional Scholar, MasterDebator, Philosopher extrodenair have his whitey tighties in a bunch?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

12 Users are viewing the Redwood City Forum right now

Search the Redwood City Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 32 min Abrahem 7,843
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 4 hr Acme Pest Control 15,916
dr. amit sex doctor male and female sex solucat... 22 hr derek jeter 4
mtn.ng Thu Balogun 1
Get Paid for Posts? Social Networking's New Twist Thu N8 the Grrr8 1
La Victoria's Orange Sauce (Jan '06) Jul 23 Orange Sauce 127
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Jul 22 Ronald 2,251
•••
•••

Redwood City News Video

•••
•••

Redwood City Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••