Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,938

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.

Full Story
Tom Pappas

Los Angeles, CA

#184050 Mar 21, 2013
Tzunammi wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please... you call this a reasoned argument???
<quoted text>
That is not a fact, that is inaccurate.
Pipe down, lesbo! You're letting your scissoring urges dictate your reasoning and logic.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184051 Mar 21, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
God doesn't exist. The Constitution grants equal rights, even when that's not popular with knuckle draggers. And how can anybody over about 4 years old believe that Sodom and Gomorrah story!?
yaYaya, we all evolved from a puddle of crud. lol. If you knew anything about science and the odds of that happening you would change your tune.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184052 Mar 21, 2013
Apollo11911 wrote:
<quoted text>
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
You are misinterpreting what is meant by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The SCOTUS has already explained why a resident of one State cannot move to another and compel that State to accept laws from another.

This has held true for Concealed Carry Permits, Nursing and Medical Licenses, Drivers Licenses, Insurance Licenses, Car Insurance.....

I could go on for pages, but why bother?

Just because something is legal in one State doesn't mean you can do it in another. The is the entire foundation of our Republic, States are in a sense individual countries.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184053 Mar 21, 2013
Apollo11911 wrote:
<quoted text>
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
More on this if you care to read.

This is from Yale Law.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#184054 Mar 21, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>yaYaya, we all evolved from a puddle of crud. lol. If you knew anything about science and the odds of that happening you would change your tune.
The odds that lightning will strike a specific point on the planet are quite small. The odds that lightning will strike are significantly larger.

The odds that a life sustaining planet will occur in a specific solar system in a specific galaxy are quite small. Throw in the large size of the univers and the significan number of galaxies and planetary systems and the odds become a much lower hurdle to cross.

If you knew anything about life and the role chemical reactions play in it along with the number of chemical reactions that take place quite spontaneously you'd admit that just about anything is possible and there is no need for a god, gods, or God to have any concern over any matters as trivial as the crap we throw at each other.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184055 Mar 21, 2013
HorderS wrote:
Once again we have the (stupid) RNC, GOP, Republican and Tea Party wackO's to thank for the latest US Government Shut Down
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the DNC.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184056 Mar 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Akpilot
Thought you might find this similar to your argument.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george...
DOMA is an abuse of federalism
By George F. Will,
“[U]nder the Constitution, the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.”
— U.S. Supreme Court,
Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948)
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an exception to the rule that a law’s title is as uninformative about the law’s purpose as the titles of Marx Brothers movies (“Duck Soup,”“Horse Feathers,”“Animal Crackers”) are about those movies’ contents. DOMA’s purpose is precisely what its title says. Which is why many conservatives and liberals should be uneasy Wednesday when the Supreme Court hears arguments about its constitutionality.
Conservatives who supported DOMA should, after 17years’ reflection, want the act overturned because its purpose is constitutionally improper. Liberals who want the act struck down should be discomfited by the reason the court should give when doing this.
DOMA, which in 1996 passed the House 342 to 67 and the Senate 85 to 14, defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. Because approximately 1,100 federal laws pertain to marriage, DOMA’s defenders argue that Congress merely exercised its power to define a term used in many statutes. But before 1996, federal statutes functioned without this definition, which obviously was adopted for the “defense” of marriage against state policies involving a different definition.“Before DOMA,” an amicus brief submitted by a group of federalism scholars notes,“federal law took state law as it found it.”
The question now is whether DOMA is “necessary and proper” for the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated congressional power. There is no such power pertaining to marriage. This subject is a state responsibility, a tradition established and validated by what can be called constitutional silence: The 10th Amendment says,“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The amicus brief takes no position on same-sex marriage as social policy. Rather, it addresses a question that should obviate the need to address whether DOMA violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The threshold question is: Does the federal government have the power that DOMA’s preamble proclaims, the power “to define and protect the institution of marriage”?
DOMA’s obvious purpose is, as the scholars’ brief says,“to reject state governments’ policy judgments.” Its purpose is to endorse, and to some extent enforce, the traditional understanding of marriage. The scholars’ brief says:
“Congress may regulate in this area to the extent necessary to further its enumerated powers. But it may not simply reject the states’ policy judgments as if it had the same authority to make domestic-relations law as they do. That is the difference between a government with a general police power and a government of limited and enumerated powers.”
Ernest A. Young of the Duke Law School, the principal author of the federalism brief, says the operation of DOMA cannot help but burden states because “federal and state law are pervasively intertwined.” To understand the harm that could be done by an unlimited federal power to define the terms of domestic-relations law, Young recalls when a few states, venturing beyond the national consensus, began experimenting with no-fault divorce. Suppose, Young says, Congress passed a statute refusing recognition, for purposes of federal law, of any divorce where neither party made a showing of fault:
Aren't Judge-Its just so amusing. You have 7 negative for a post which completely explains why DOMA is unconstitutional.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184057 Mar 21, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
And the link you provided proved you lied!
That's what's so funny.
And you don't have the 'nads to admit you made a mistake.
That's what's so pathetic.
<quoted text>
You claim I'm not relevant, but lady, you protest way too much!
LOLSER!
I almost feel bad making fun of you Rose, I feel like I shouldn't pile on to what the rest of the world already does to you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184058 Mar 21, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
The odds that lightning will strike a specific point on the planet are quite small. The odds that lightning will strike are significantly larger.
The odds that a life sustaining planet will occur in a specific solar system in a specific galaxy are quite small. Throw in the large size of the univers and the significan number of galaxies and planetary systems and the odds become a much lower hurdle to cross.
If you knew anything about life and the role chemical reactions play in it along with the number of chemical reactions that take place quite spontaneously you'd admit that just about anything is possible and there is no need for a god, gods, or God to have any concern over any matters as trivial as the crap we throw at each other.
Isn't it interesting that we will immediately dismiss the possibility of a "god" because of scientific advances? Advances which include the creation of life. And advancement which must be assumed to be a FIRST if one is to dismiss a "GOD".

Sure, it may not be the "god" of the bible, but I find it quite naive to think there is NO possibility that in fact, another more intelligent life-form, a "god", didn't come along and kick start the human race much the same as we are doing today.

Think of the things we build and create, is it possible we aren't the "big man" on the block? Perhaps we are simply living in a big ant farm as entertainment for our "god"?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184059 Mar 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
God does exist, you're proof he has a sense of humor. The Constitution has to be interpreted, and it treats naturalized citizens differently than American born, as it relates to qualification for the presidency.
Are you serious? You’re comparing the rules regarding qualifying for POTUS to the rights of Gay Americans. It amuses me to watch bigots attempt to make a logical argument against Gay Marriage. But, heaven forbid (pun intended) your rights be infringed upon. That’s when you all start whining like little biotches. What will you nitwits come up with next? Just admit it, you are weirded-out by Gay people and that clouds your judgment. In other words you’re a bigot.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184060 Mar 21, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it interesting that we will immediately dismiss the possibility of a "god" because of scientific advances? Advances which include the creation of life. And advancement which must be assumed to be a FIRST if one is to dismiss a "GOD".
Sure, it may not be the "god" of the bible, but I find it quite naive to think there is NO possibility that in fact, another more intelligent life-form, a "god", didn't come along and kick start the human race much the same as we are doing today.
Think of the things we build and create, is it possible we aren't the "big man" on the block? Perhaps we are simply living in a big ant farm as entertainment for our "god"?
He’d be roflhao, at you.
Dullerds

La Puente, CA

#184061 Mar 21, 2013
More tea-party propaganda, BS
Ravianna

Lincoln City, OR

#184062 Mar 21, 2013
There is no so such thing as same-sex marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184063 Mar 21, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious? You’re comparing the rules regarding qualifying for POTUS to the rights of Gay Americans.
You aren't very bright are you?

The point was that you can have restrictive laws while not having an equal right's violation under the Constitution.

In the instance of the POTUS, the example used, not every US Citizen is eligible to hold said office. In the example, a naturalized US Citizen, whom is a citizen, is not treated as an equal to the Natural Born Citizen, as such they cannot hold the office of the President.

Apply the same logic as is applied by the likes of you an Rose among others to the same sex marriage issue, the previous example would be a violation of the equal rights provisions of the 14th Amendment, and as such Article II Sec 1 of the US Constitution is itself Unconstitutional.

What an interesting quandary?
MsSoccerMom

Elk Grove, CA

#184064 Mar 21, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
The odds that lightning will strike a specific point on the planet are quite small. The odds that lightning will strike are significantly larger.
The odds that a life sustaining planet will occur in a specific solar system in a specific galaxy are quite small. Throw in the large size of the univers and the significan number of galaxies and planetary systems and the odds become a much lower hurdle to cross.
If you knew anything about life and the role chemical reactions play in it along with the number of chemical reactions that take place quite spontaneously you'd admit that just about anything is possible and there is no need for a god, gods, or God to have any concern over any matters as trivial as the crap we throw at each other.
thanks for proving you are an idiot. I noticed you left out any odds. That's kind of odd. When you factor in:

A. The requirements for a hospitable, life-sustaining world with…

B. The requirements for a hospitable, life-sustaining universe with…

C. The requirements for generating complex life from seeming nothingness (without getting into the actual complexity of the organisms involved which makes it all the worse)…

You arrive at

D. A number so vast that not only does it beggar the imagination, but any individual that isn’t moved to at least a very, very cautious atheism or a very curious agnosticism isn’t a terribly intelligent or honest person.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184065 Mar 21, 2013
MsSoccerMom wrote:
<quoted text>thanks for proving you are an idiot. I noticed you left out any odds. That's kind of odd. When you factor in:
A. The requirements for a hospitable, life-sustaining world with…
B. The requirements for a hospitable, life-sustaining universe with…
C. The requirements for generating complex life from seeming nothingness (without getting into the actual complexity of the organisms involved which makes it all the worse)…
You arrive at
D. A number so vast that not only does it beggar the imagination, but any individual that isn’t moved to at least a very, very cautious atheism or a very curious agnosticism isn’t a terribly intelligent or honest person.
well said. It would make more of a fairy tale to believe we all evolved from a puddle of crud. Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.
Spanner

La Puente, CA

#184066 Mar 22, 2013
Not another Dink-Worths.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184067 Mar 22, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
The odds that lightning will strike a specific point on the planet are quite small. The odds that lightning will strike are significantly larger.
The odds that a life sustaining planet will occur in a specific solar system in a specific galaxy are quite small. Throw in the large size of the univers and the significan number of galaxies and planetary systems and the odds become a much lower hurdle to cross.
If you knew anything about life and the role chemical reactions play in it along with the number of chemical reactions that take place quite spontaneously you'd admit that just about anything is possible and there is no need for a god, gods, or God to have any concern over any matters as trivial as the crap we throw at each other.
Your position also includes the Star Trek scenario of an Alien presence 'seeding' an planet with life.

That is exactly the description of Moses' meeting with 'God' that created the Jewish culture.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184068 Mar 22, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious? You’re comparing the rules regarding qualifying for POTUS to the rights of Gay Americans. It amuses me to watch bigots attempt to make a logical argument against Gay Marriage. But, heaven forbid (pun intended) your rights be infringed upon. That’s when you all start whining like little biotches. What will you nitwits come up with next? Just admit it, you are weirded-out by Gay people and that clouds your judgment. In other words you’re a bigot.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are not an equal relationship, just like all other relationships, every single one of which is ideally birthed solely by marriage.

Just admit it, you have no logical answer, so you spew out ad homoan attacks.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184069 Mar 22, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it interesting that we will immediately dismiss the possibility of a "god" because of scientific advances? Advances which include the creation of life. And advancement which must be assumed to be a FIRST if one is to dismiss a "GOD".
Sure, it may not be the "god" of the bible, but I find it quite naive to think there is NO possibility that in fact, another more intelligent life-form, a "god", didn't come along and kick start the human race much the same as we are doing today.
Think of the things we build and create, is it possible we aren't the "big man" on the block? Perhaps we are simply living in a big ant farm as entertainment for our "god"?
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
He’d be roflhao, at you.
A perfect example.

Not one response to the substance of the point.

Simply (pun intended) an ad homoan attack.

Smirk.

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
APNewsBreak: 'Easy Rider' bike going to auction 1 hr hsktommox 1
Iggy Azalea's former manager claims legal right... 2 hr Shirvell s Shrivel 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 3 hr subscibe 15,995
Sean Erenstoft Lectures on Criminal E-Discovery... (May '11) 5 hr John Fielder 5
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 7 hr lollypop 5,068
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Mon GOP bull 2,265
Beverly Hills Shuns Bike Paths in Resisting Tra... Sep 14 Roger Edgar 7
•••

Beverly Hills News Video

•••
•••

Beverly Hills Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Beverly Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Beverly Hills
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••