Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 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

#140634 May 9, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, two people aren't similar to marriage, straight or gay. People are sentient beings, marriage is an institution.
Do they teach school in your trailer park?
Isn't it amazing how often the definition of marriage changes in this thread?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#140635 May 9, 2012
The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>Excuse me, just why should that pesky Constitution apply to gay people? Damn thing has been a curse to the bible thumping freaks for over 225 years. First its slavery, then no prayer in school, women's right to vote and now same sex marriage! WTF is next removal of "In God We Trust" from our currency? What we need is a Democracy!
Wow...
Fred

United States

#140636 May 9, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
The 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments of the US Constitution disagree with you.
Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) disagrees with you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#140637 May 9, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't live in a Democracy......we live under a Republic......therefore it is NOT always about the majority ruling!!!
Just think about other propositions that have passed by the majority of the vote and have been tossed because they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL......like Prop 63 and Prop 187!!!
Oh and if what you believe was true......Blacks would NEVER have been allowed to marry whites, nor would Blacks have the freedoms they enjoy today!!!
Well, yes and no.

There is a separation of power, and at a local level much of this country is and has always been designed as a democracy. The idea was to have the most powerful forms of government at the local level, that is why we have the Constitution, to protect the people and the State from runaway Federal Power. This has been failing miserably in recent history because we have forgotten the true founding of a republic.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#140638 May 9, 2012
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>You cannot vote on the rights of others that are guaranteed by our Constitution.
No one can vote on YOUR rights either.
Think, child, think.
There is no Constitutional Right to marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#140639 May 9, 2012
The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a law that says NO one can marry a sibling.
Yup, and we have a law saying that NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex, not one which says only HOMOSEXUALS can't marry someone of the same sex.

Your point?
Fred

United States

#140640 May 9, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
How? All that it is doing is INCLUDING Gays and Lesbians into the right to marry the PERSON of their choosing......exactly what straights have been able to do for ages!!!
Well, my contention is that traditional marriage is not attempted to be redefined...but un-defined.

After the definition is changed once...are we going to "evolve" to the right of marrying the PERSONS of their choosing?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#140641 May 9, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
Obama is coming out and supporting gay marriage today.:) Woah!
Yeah, make sure he votes for you because he really cares..

What a bunch of sheep..

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#140643 May 9, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, and we have a law saying that NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex, not one which says only HOMOSEXUALS can't marry someone of the same sex.
Your point?
Of course they can. There is no law against it. It simply doesn't have the blessings of the state in many cases.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#140644 May 9, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they can. There is no law against it. It simply doesn't have the blessings of the state in many cases.
Umm, this has nothing to do with what I posted, but OK..

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#140645 May 9, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no Constitutional Right to marriage.
The word of the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia, shows the indisputable and clear finding that marriage is a fundamental right.
Fred

United States

#140646 May 9, 2012
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>The word of the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia, shows the indisputable and clear finding that marriage is a fundamental right.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States...as in a legal marriage between racially mixed men and women.

With all due respect, that was a rather dishonest point you made Nettiebelle.
Justa me

Lucerne, CA

#140647 May 9, 2012
Restless Spirits wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! STFU,this is a secular nation first and foremost! Take your church and shove it up your ass!
Truth hurts eh? Thanks for proving my point.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#140648 May 9, 2012
Fred wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States...as in a legal marriage between racially mixed men and women.
With all due respect, that was a rather dishonest point you made Nettiebelle.
Loving expressly held that marriage was a fundamental right guaranteed by under the 14th amendment.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#140649 May 9, 2012
Fred wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States...as in a legal marriage between racially mixed men and women.
With all due respect, that was a rather dishonest point you made Nettiebelle.
are you not aware that the 14th amendment makes all the other amendments applicable to the states?

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#140650 May 9, 2012
Fred wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States...as in a legal marriage between racially mixed men and women.
With all due respect, that was a rather dishonest point you made Nettiebelle.
When the court says "we reaffirm" or otherwise recognizes a legal principle as part of its analysis, it is holding.

*And, thank you, Bud, wherever you are!:)*

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#140651 May 9, 2012
Fred wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States...as in a legal marriage between racially mixed men and women.
With all due respect, that was a rather dishonest point you made Nettiebelle.
The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#140652 May 9, 2012
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>The word of the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia, shows the indisputable and clear finding that marriage is a fundamental right.
Too bad they put a disclaimer on that definition:

"'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Nothing in the union between those of the same sex is "fundamental to your very existence and survival"

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#140653 May 9, 2012
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>are you not aware that the 14th amendment makes all the other amendments applicable to the states?
Really? Where does the 14th Amendment say that??

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#140655 May 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is the point we have been making. You are trying to impose a fake identity on a relationship that precedes human history.
Not even a new right, but a fake right.
Thank you for your rare mistaken honesty!
No, I'm not.........I'm telling you that just because you don't like the fact that I'm married.......my marriage is as important to me as yours is to you!!!

See, I would have the right to marry the man of my choosing with no questions asked and you would not care.....but because the person I am married to is another woman, all of a sudden......you feel that I no longer have that right and you feel like you have some say in my decision....WHICH YA DON'T!!!

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.

Citrus Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: CGA Property Management (Jun '08) 11 min theysuck 24
WHO Serghei Kundilovski Aug 13 pilar 2
fast and reliable pain n anxiety meds (Jan '15) Aug 3 Ashley 5
Review: Adams Car Connection Inc (Oct '08) Jul 28 Obama Lubs Rob 7
Gay sex stories (Nov '14) Jul 24 Ryan 8
looking for witness to an accident Jul '17 ALM 1
V.I.P. PRIVATE PARTIES in Sacramento😎 J... Jul '17 VIPPrivateParties 1

Citrus Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Citrus Heights Mortgages