Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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.

Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#142729 May 26, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>No, I have never made a threat. I'm sure you have me confused with another fan of yours, you have so many. The Amazon rain forest doesn't thrive as the Mojave desert does, does it genius? I already answered that question, why the short term memory? pot? Nothing against gays, just want to keep the marriage the traditional man woman. You have a problem with that? are you a bigot or something? why do u call them "them". are u ashamed to call them gay? or homosexual or Lesbian? You act like a lot of stupid people here that this argument needs to be WON here. Do you think this topix on homosexual marriage here will make any any difference what so ever? I come here to mock how stupid you are, that's it.
Gee.... what a strange way to spend your time..... it sounds like you have issues with gay men. Hmmmmmm.......
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#142730 May 26, 2012
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I AM BLACK. I know more black people than you do, and I know what the black people I know are saying and I know my culture. Black people have not changed their stance on this issue, and those polls are misleading. How many people were samples, and where and when? Everyone who has read those polls says the same thing: SKEWED BY THE GAY ADVOCATES.
If there is so much support, then lets continue putting this gay marriage thing to a vote in the states. What will happen is that 80% or more blacks will vote against it, and at least 30% of whites and 30% of Hispanics will vote against it.
Gay marriage has NEVER been voted for in any state in the United States. Blacks have consistently shown by their voting record on this issue that they do not support it. Homosexuality itself is not supported by blacks or Asians or most Hispanics. Its a fact, and your poll is ridiculous.
Give these figures:
How many people sampled? Where were they sampled? Posting that reveals it to be a sham.
BTW, I am not a Christian or Muslim or part of any organized religion.
So you think blacks are going to vote for Mitt Romney? Seriously?

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142731 May 26, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but no Romney CAN'T write an Executive Order banning ANYTHING.....He would be trampling on the States right to define marriage and he'd be violating the Constitution!!!
Again, INDIVIDUAL STATES BY THEMSELVES DON'T MATTER WITH REGARDS TO A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!!!
Oslama violated the constitution in oslamacare......LOL
The patriot act
The food safety act.

Oslama says he can tell a state if they can have raw dairy, medical marijuana or even certain guns..........ROTFLMAO

And Yes Mitt could and will if necessary ban at the federal level SSM......

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#142732 May 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think blacks are going to vote for Mitt Romney? Seriously?
Yeh, blacks are owned by the left!

They can't think for themselves!

You tell them what to do Moans Alot!!!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142733 May 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeh, blacks are owned by the left!
They can't think for themselves!
You tell them what to do Moans Alot!!!
The tide is shifting....LOL

NewsOne Poll: 63% Of Respondents Don’t Support Obama On Gay Marriage

After the bombshell news story yesterday of President Barack Obama speaking out in support of gay marriage in a sit-down interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, several voices in the African-American community rang out on the issue. NewsOne ran a story on the interview on Wednesday, which was heavily contested by readers. In the poll, we asked readers if they agreed with the President’s decision to support gay marriage. In the 22 hours since the poll has been live, more than 400 votes have come with an overwhelming 63 percent of readers in disagreement with President Obama’s stance.

http://newsone.com/2006909/63-of-newsone-poll...
Denise

Barstow, CA

#142734 May 26, 2012
Denise is driving to Joshua Tree, California?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#142735 May 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
You continue to find things to keep your lides closed to.
What law can change the fact that marriage is the foundational relationship of society and gay unions are a doubling of a genetic defect?
It certainly has been held to be a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court, however that damages rather than helps your position because fundamental rights may not be put to a vote.
As for homosexuality being a genetic defect, I would invite you to support that drunken boast by offering any reputable medical, scientific, or academic institution that would endorse your assertion.

Simply saying crap doesn’t make it true, and you don’t have any foundation for the BS you are spewing.
KiMare wrote:
Feel free to indicate a logical explanation how gay unions qualify for equal protection. I don't think you can.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
Homosexuals are persons.
You’ve yet to offer a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, as required by the 14th Amendment, that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Well, that was easy.
KiMare wrote:
Smile.
That is "immaterial"???
I smile, because this is pretty much par for the course for what those opposed to marriage equality can think up, and it is less than stellar.

I sometimes wonder if you ever open your mouth except to change feet.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142736 May 26, 2012
Bill Of Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah,Lets ask the Confederacy about the Federal Government begging for permission to seize power! LOLOLOL
So you use an example of violating the Constitution by the Federal Government as to somehow support that the Federal Government can do as it pleases?

Remember that the next time the Federal Government decides to say f-you, and you scream freedom.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142737 May 26, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
Gay people need to do everything to get Obama reelected this Nov. If not they will blame us if Obam loses. We can't allow Romney to win under any circumstances.
Why? So Obama can continue to do nothing for you?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142738 May 26, 2012
The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>Look asshat you claim that a state can overlook the Constitution. To change the constitution requires an amendment. But that is not what YOU claim!
No, asshat, you are the one who claims the judicial branch can change the Constitution without the consent of the States.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142739 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you mean to say repeal the 13th Amendment?
<quoted text>
You are hardly one to talk, since you have just suggested that we "appeal the 13th Amendment."
Yawn..

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142740 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly has been held to be a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court, however that damages rather than helps your position because fundamental rights may not be put to a vote.
As for homosexuality being a genetic defect, I would invite you to support that drunken boast by offering any reputable medical, scientific, or academic institution that would endorse your assertion.
Simply saying crap doesn’t make it true, and you don’t have any foundation for the BS you are spewing.
<quoted text>
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
Homosexuals are persons.
You’ve yet to offer a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, as required by the 14th Amendment, that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Well, that was easy.
<quoted text>
I smile, because this is pretty much par for the course for what those opposed to marriage equality can think up, and it is less than stellar.
I sometimes wonder if you ever open your mouth except to change feet.
It is the gay community that claims they were born that way........ROTFLMAO

If that is the case then it must be a genetic defect as it is not normal........LOL

So is it a choice air a defect?????

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142741 May 26, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Translation: "Caught again, damn, oh well, better to try a feeble argument than admit I was wrong."
<quoted text>Slavery based on race, or pretty much any other suspect classification, wouldn't be allowed as long as the 14th Amendment remains in force. Unless ANYONE can be a slave and/or owner because slavery is a legally available option for EVERYONE (reasonable restrictions apply), or anyone kept out of the business on the basis of a suspect classification, would have varying degrees of an equal protection claim.
So much for your feeble defense of your original argument. The point remains.... If the country managed to survive more or less as it presently exists through the process of of actually repealing the 13th Amendment, slavery, beyond the current illegal trade (which would now be 'constitutionally protected', but not legal), wouldn't be an automatic, only a possibility, because the 14th isn't the only legal obstacle to its return. The laws which make the aforementioned, currently existing illegal trade illegal are another obstacle you failed to even address.
<quoted text>Screaming "slavery"? WTF? Buttercup, you're the one who ventured off to stupid when you screamed, that "slavery" would return if the country repealed the 13th Amendment. I just wanted to point out, that even in the incredibly unlikely event many of us would have lived to actually repeal the 13th, that wouldn't make "slavery" either constitutional or legal. THAT was your original point, now let's deal with your historical revisionism: <quoted text>Oh, so sorry, the correct answers would be: "While the founding fathers envisioned a federal government which managed a very limited range of the common interests of the quasi-independent states, the Constitution they wrote, gives the federal government a great deal of leeway in assuming most, if not almost all, of the powers they have assumed thus far. The now less than quasi-independent states, are able to "do as they please", a whole heck of a lot less today than they were back then, because that is the type of government the people have voted for. They remain bound by the constitutional guarantees of the rights of the individual and at the mercy of most decisions of the federal government and the only way to amend the Constitution and alter this arrangement is by permission of said federal government."
Remember, it's the states themselves and by extension, we the people, which have provided us with the self-perpetuating circus of a federal government we know today. To our credit however, we have established a system where it's a hell of a lot harder for the states to "do as they please" when it comes to screwing with OUR rights, especially in ways you're hypothesizing.
All that typing for nothing..

The 14th Amendment protects "Citizens"- with the repeal of the 13th the States could once again have slaves, which in turn would no longer qualify as citizens. There would be no need to repeal the 14th as well.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#142742 May 26, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Yawn..
What’s the matter? Ill equipped to provide a rational rebuttal?
Here Is One wrote:
It is the gay community that claims they were born that way........ROTFLMAO
Well, in part because you seem to lack the ability to provide any reputable proof of your assertion, and in part because it is utterly irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Here Is One wrote:
If that is the case then it must be a genetic defect as it is not normal........LOL
Feel free to offer proof from a reputable medical, scientific, or academic organization to that effect that will make you look less foolish. Right now you have offered an assertion which you cannot remotely prove, and which ultimately has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.

Way to make yourself look incompetent.
Here Is One wrote:
So is it a choice air a defect?????
It is irrelevant whether it is a choice or defect (although my challenge stands to substantiate your drunken boast), as it has no bearing upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. If they are persons within a state’s jurisdiction, then they are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

Do you delight in making yourself look foolish? Because you seem to do so with great regularity.
akpilot wrote:
All that typing for nothing..
The 14th Amendment protects "Citizens"- with the repeal of the 13th the States could once again have slaves, which in turn would no longer qualify as citizens. There would be no need to repeal the 14th as well.
Actually, when addressing equal protections, it specifically says that states must provide ALL PERSONS within their jurisdiction, not all citizens, equal protection of the laws.

However, even if your assertion WERE true, and the 14th Amendment only applied to citizens, it would STILL be applicable to homosexuals who were citizens.

Your other argument about reinstating slavery is both inept and irrelevant.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#142743 May 26, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Oslama violated the constitution in oslamacare......LOL
The patriot act
The food safety act.
Oslama says he can tell a state if they can have raw dairy, medical marijuana or even certain guns..........ROTFLMAO
And Yes Mitt could and will if necessary ban at the federal level SSM......
Isn't that why his health care is being challenged.....and he didn't sign an Executive Order to mandate it.

The UNCONSTITUTIONAL Patriot Act was ORIGINALLY signed by George Bush, NOT President Obama, though he did resign it.....nevertheless, it was Bush who put that Illegal act in place....with a few other illegal acts like wire-tapping!!!

Sorry, but the President simply DOESN'T have that kind of power......and therefore by doing it....it would be challenge at SCOTUS and it would lose.....and then you might have something you really don't want......and that's one of the reasons Romney wouldn't do it....but before Romney can do anything.....He has to win.....and that might not happen!!!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142744 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What’s the matter? Ill equipped to provide a rational rebuttal?
<quoted text>
Well, in part because you seem to lack the ability to provide any reputable proof of your assertion, and in part because it is utterly irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
<quoted text>
Feel free to offer proof from a reputable medical, scientific, or academic organization to that effect that will make you look less foolish. Right now you have offered an assertion which you cannot remotely prove, and which ultimately has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.
Way to make yourself look incompetent.
<quoted text>
It is irrelevant whether it is a choice or defect (although my challenge stands to substantiate your drunken boast), as it has no bearing upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. If they are persons within a state’s jurisdiction, then they are entitled to equal protection of the laws.
Do you delight in making yourself look foolish? Because you seem to do so with great regularity.
<quoted text>
Actually, when addressing equal protections, it specifically says that states must provide ALL PERSONS within their jurisdiction, not all citizens, equal protection of the laws.
However, even if your assertion WERE true, and the 14th Amendment only applied to citizens, it would STILL be applicable to homosexuals who were citizens.
Your other argument about reinstating slavery is both inept and irrelevant.
I think it is nothing more than a perversion........Period...... ....LOL

It is the gay community that say they are born that way and can't help it.......

If that is the case then by definition they are born abnormal or with a defect......

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#142745 May 26, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
I think it is nothing more than a perversion........Period...... ....LOL
I didn't ask for your personal opinion. I asked for scientific proof. This response tends to indicate that you lack the capacity to provide such proof of your assertion.
Here Is One wrote:
It is the gay community that say they are born that way and can't help it.......
Here, you are the one making the claim that homosexuality is a choice, ergo it is incumbent upon you to prove your assertion, and it appears that you lack the competence to do so.
Here Is One wrote:
If that is the case then by definition they are born abnormal or with a defect......
Feel free to prove it. I don't think you are able.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142746 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask for your personal opinion. I asked for scientific proof. This response tends to indicate that you lack the capacity to provide such proof of your assertion.
<quoted text>
Here, you are the one making the claim that homosexuality is a choice, ergo it is incumbent upon you to prove your assertion, and it appears that you lack the competence to do so.
<quoted text>
Feel free to prove it. I don't think you are able.
I don't care what you asked for....LOL

The point is and you would know this if you could follow a conversation was that I have said there is no proof that being gay is not a choice.......

But if we ever do find out that there is a "gay" gene it will be called a defect.........Period.....
As by definition it is not normal..........ROTFLMAO

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#142748 May 26, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
I don't care what you asked for....LOL
And, clearly, you do not care about making an intelligent or factually support argument. If you cannot defend your child-like argument, that is hardly my problem.
Here Is One wrote:
The point is and you would know this if you could follow a conversation was that I have said there is no proof that being gay is not a choice.......
Of course whether or not being gay is inherent or a choice is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. This argument is nothing more than a half-baked rationalization.
Here Is One wrote:
But if we ever do find out that there is a "gay" gene it will be called a defect.........Period.....
Science thus far has disagreed with you, a fact which is reinforced by your inability to offer the support of any reputable medical, scientific, or academic institution to support your position. http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our...
Here Is One wrote:
As by definition it is not normal..........ROTFLMAO
Nowhere does the constitution require normalcy to receive equal protection of the laws. In fact it goes so far as to ensure that ALL PERSONS within a state’s jurisdiction are guaranteed such equal protection.

This rationalization is particularly pathetic.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#142750 May 26, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Why? So Obama can continue to do nothing for you?
You mean like repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. How is that "nothing?"

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.

Simi Valley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bruce Jenner 19 hr be well Bruce 1
News Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) May 29 City Counselman 156
Use one word....drop one game (Aug '13) May 29 _Zoey_ 480
News All Los Angeles County Jails on Lockdown (Feb '06) May 28 Hector Valente 1,713
News Missing OC Couple Found On Indian Reservation, ... May 27 nacy11 1
News Prince Jackson picks up some goodies on a solo ... May 25 Octopus 3
Does Kendall Really Think Kylie is Trashy? May 14 Bansky 1
More from around the web

Simi Valley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]