Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181895 Feb 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, I wasn't saying anything about source. I just put Loving v VA in quotes because it does state that marriage is a right.
It sure does, but unlike you when it does so it cites the original source- Skinner v Oklahoma. Something that you like to ignore as it ties marriage and procreation as rights into a nice little bundle.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181896 Feb 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

And again, you can't come up with an argument against gay marriage.
Why would I you moron, I never said there was one, in fact I have never said a single time in this forum that same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

What I have argued, is that the federal judiciary has no business sticking their nose in it. There is no Constitutional right to marriage, and marriage laws fall under the purview of the STATE. At least that is what the court said when they tossed portions of DOMA, or don't you like that decision anymore?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#181897 Feb 28, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know, why don't you tell us?
See, you never come up with an argument.
LOLSER!
already

Covina, CA

#181898 Feb 28, 2013
get over it

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#181899 Feb 28, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I you moron, I never said there was one, in fact I have never said a single time in this forum that same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.
Then you aren't very good at communicating.
akaidiot wrote:
What I have argued, is that the federal judiciary has no business sticking their nose in it. There is no Constitutional right to marriage, and marriage laws fall under the purview of the STATE. At least that is what the court said when they tossed portions of DOMA, or don't you like that decision anymore?
LOL. Dummy, the 14th Amendment says STATES can't deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That would include marriage laws.(Loving v VA) Must suck to be an idiot like you are.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181900 Feb 28, 2013

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181901 Feb 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you aren't very good at communicating.
My communication skills aren't the problem, you comprehension skills are.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
LOL. Dummy, the 14th Amendment says STATES can't deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That would include marriage laws.(Loving v VA) Must suck to be an idiot like you are.
LOL. Dummy, everyone is treated equally- no one is allowed to marry a person of the same sex and everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

We have been through this before Rose, even the court told you that you are an idiot:

"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced.[...]
The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the [*12]Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.

In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id.[emphasis added])...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." Hernandez v Robles
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#181902 Feb 28, 2013
Can you imagine the loser who rates Rose_NoHo's posts "Brilliant"?

Anyone?
Dirty Harry

Covina, CA

#181903 Feb 28, 2013
How are the CopperHeads doing tonight
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181904 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If all other laws against polygamy were repealed except PROP 8, that would be the only thing stopping polygamy from being legal in California, X-box.
D
If the queen had balls she'd be king.

If, if, if..... try dealing with what is.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181906 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 says marriage is a man and a woman ONLY. Not 2 men and a woman. Not 2 men, not 2 women. It EFFECTIVELY and EQUALLY bans polygamy as well as SSM.
Look Jerky. The bottom line is I support marriage equality and you do not.
Polygamy was already illegaly when Prop 8 was passed. Prop 8 banned same sex marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181907 Feb 28, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Polygamy was already illegaly when Prop 8 was passed. Prop 8 banned same sex marriage.
Prop 8 banned any marriage save that of one man and one woman.

I thought you wanted to deal with "what is?"

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181908 Mar 1, 2013
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.

While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181910 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
But it isn't your decision what another couple wants to do, is it?
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181911 Mar 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So when something changes nothing changes?
You really need help.
You think I was saying nothing changes?

You have a vivid imagination.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181912 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
(Also, the fact that you focus so much on aspects of gay sex really makes me wonder...)

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#181913 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; ..
Is it "gay sex" if lots of straight people do it, and most gay people don't? I believe it's called anal sex.

If you want the government to directly intervene and prevent all anal sex, then wouldn't that apply to straight folks as well? What kind of testing and regulation would you require the government to engage in to deny marriage license to any anal sex practitioners? Who would run it?

Who would pay for it?

And most importantly, who else but you would support it?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#181914 Mar 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
....
LOL. Dummy, everyone is treated equally- no one is allowed to marry a person of the same sex and everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.
.......
You mean like there was no discrimination in preventing interracial marriages, since all black and white people could already marry someone of the same race?

That argument didn't work well, then. Why do you think it smells any better today?

Did the societal ideal suddenly begin to favor only loveless marriages of convenience? When did that happen?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#181915 Mar 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 banned any marriage save that of one man and one woman.
I thought you wanted to deal with "what is?"
No it didn't. It only banned new marriages but preserved all of the EXISTING same sex marriages.

Another reason for it's silliness and it's unconstitutionality.

You can't claim to be "preserving or protecting" something, where there is living proof that what you are protecting it against causes no harm and only good.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#181916 Mar 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
.......
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." Hernandez v Robles
Of course, that's patently absurd, since of COURSE gay men and lesbian women are disproportional disadvantages and burdened by such bans.

This reasoning counted only exist if there were no such thing as people who can only be attracted to the same gender.

Try proving that one.

That's why this type of reasoning has fallen out of favor legally.

Deal with it.

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.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Micheal Moore 8 min Rick grimes 1
Alec Baldwin Is A Disgusting Human Being!! (Sep '11) 52 min Now_What- 16
Review: Fidelity Locksmith Services (Mar '16) 6 hr James Sutton21 75
News Armenian organized crime grows more complex (Oct '10) 18 hr The Truth 2008 805
News Amy Schumer responds to critics over possible B... 22 hr Dr Wu 1
A career in Federal law enforcement Thu Ellison ISIS Muslim 2
News A pair of 'Real Housewives' make real estate mo... Nov 29 just a dollar dep... 1

Beverly Hills Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Beverly Hills Mortgages