Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 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.

jacques renault

Justice, IL

#162189 Oct 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly, ignorant child. You should try to educate yourself before making such foolish comments. That judge has issued several ruling on issues concerning gay rights. Some of them in favor, some OPPOSED. In other words, his record shows that he has been using the law and the Constitution to guide his decisions, not any agenda. In fact, although I have not followed up on it, I have heard that he has stated that he has no interest in getting married, so the ruling does not help him in any way.
You missed where he admitted in writing that he "moved the strike zone" in this case

Walker was in the closet until he was outed recently

Before then, like you he was maintaining deep cover as a homosexual, he for selfish reasons, which he more than made up for to his Frisco friends his last day on the job

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162190 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
This argument is getting tired and worn..
There is no RIGHT to marriage,
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
akpilot wrote:
it is a legal contract created by the States, and thus is subject to their specific definitions.
If you want to make this argument that the 14th Amendment prevents any State from preventing a person from doing what they please then you have a long way to go. Let's talk about polygamy, how about the right's of private property owners to allow smoking in their private businesses if they so choose, how about the fact the California discriminates against vehicles towing trailers by restricting them to 55MHP while other vehicles can travel at 70MPH?
The argument using Loving v Virginia is worn, and anyone who would actually take the time to read the opinion of the court would see why:
"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
The law accepted marriage as one man one woman, but it excluded allowing members of different races from partaking thus creating a special class. In the case of same sex unions, there is no such distinction, homosexuals are not prevented from entering into a marriage, but they must follow the same rules as everyone else- the must find someone of the opposite sex.
"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."..."Plain tiffs 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. As such, there is no gender [*16]classification triggering intermediate scrutiny.
Nor does the statutory scheme create a classification based on sexual orientation. In this respect, the Domestic Relations Law is facially neutral: individuals who seek marriage licenses are not queried concerning their sexual orientation and are not precluded from marrying if they are not heterosexual. Regardless of sexual orientation, any person can marry a person of the opposite sex."- Hernandez v Robles
And any person could marry someone of the same race before Loving v VA.

A man can marry a woman, but a woman can't. That's not equal.
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't. That's not equal.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162191 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>And here's what YOU said:
<quoted text>
Notice how the SCOTUS says the EXACT OPPOSITE? That means YOU ARE WRONG.
How long are you going to cling to your delusion?
<quoted text>No. Any time you pretend that I am forward a position which I am NOT and then argue as if I were, THAT is a strawman. Notice how you even prefaced it with "If you want to make the argument..." I didn't want to make that argument. I DIDN'T make that argument. That's merely the argument you wanted to respond to, so you had to invent it.
If you knew a little more about debate, I wouldn't have to explain that to you.
Had any Milk Runs lately? How you liking the change to the vasi inside the cut?
You can't read can you? Go away, I have not the time for your childish nonsense.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162192 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
<quoted text>
And any person could marry someone of the same race before Loving v VA.
A man can marry a woman, but a woman can't. That's not equal.
A woman can marry a man, but a man can't. That's not equal.
The SCOTUS disagrees with me?

You do realize those were direct quotes from the court don't you?

You are dismissed puppet.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162193 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Uh, the SCOTUS DOES agree that marriage is a Right (the ONLY claim I have made in regard to what they think.) They DID take it up a long time ago. It's the case YOU sited.
When your reading comprehension catches up and you can stop arguing against claims I haven't made, THEN you can lecture me on debating skills.
I see you can read, it is the comprehension that you have problems with.

You should work on that.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162194 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is what the SCOTUS as said in regards to marriage being a "right"
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)"- Loving v Virginia
Yep. Marriage is a right. Why do you claim it's not?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162195 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't read can you? Go away, I have not the time for your childish nonsense.
Frisbee gave you a whipping.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162196 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS disagrees with me?
You do realize those were direct quotes from the court don't you?
You are dismissed puppet.
Yeah, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,". Basic civil rights are a subset of rights. So, marriage is a right.
You claim it's not.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162197 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
You can't read can you? Go away, I have not the time for your childish nonsense.
I can read just fine. I'm worried about you though. The case YOU sited is the one that proves you wrong. How is it that escapes you?
akpilot wrote:
The SCOTUS disagrees with me?
You do realize those were direct quotes from the court don't you?
You are dismissed puppet.
Yeah, and they say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. Have you been drinking?
akpilot wrote:
I see you can read, it is the comprehension that you have problems with.
You should work on that.
Exactly which part did I miscomprehend? The part where you said marriage isn't a right, or the part where the United States Supreme Court says it is?

Any Milk Runs lately? I've got one next week.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162198 Oct 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Yep. Marriage is a right. Why do you claim it's not?
Weird, right? He's even siting the case that proves him wrong. It's just baffling.
jacques renault

Justice, IL

#162199 Oct 5, 2012
wasn't Vaughn Walker the homosexual who got klonked on his head by a woman with a beehive his last day at work, started yelling at everyone to screw themselves, deployed the escape chute, and raced through the airport to be arrested in bed with another man?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#162200 Oct 5, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
The judge is queer he got married closed case, the rest he left for you to figure out .. he left you holding the nut sack
He did NOT get married, loony toon.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#162201 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
wasn't Vaughn Walker the homosexual who got klonked on his head by a woman with a beehive his last day at work, started yelling at everyone to screw themselves, deployed the escape chute, and raced through the airport to be arrested in bed with another man?
Your desperation is showing....
Laquer

Covina, CA

#162202 Oct 5, 2012
Just a plain case of laquer.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162203 Oct 5, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
You missed where he admitted in writing that he "moved the strike zone" in this case
If Walker's ruling had survived intact through the Court of Appeal's ruling, we wouldn't be talking the evident fate of just California's amendment, but the fate of all of them. Given the disastrous court record of the proponents, he went for putting them all out of their misery. The three Judge panel didn't even take him to task for it, because he did get one thing right, there is no way you can call what went on in California constitutional.
jacques renault wrote:
Walker was in the closet until he was outed recently
Although he had never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, it wasn't a secret either. BOTH sides were aware of it before trial. Hell, readers of this forum could have known about it if they read the article I posted on here before the trial began.
jacques renault wrote:
Before then, like you he was maintaining deep cover as a homosexual, he for selfish reasons, which he more than made up for to his Frisco friends his last day on the job
Let's see, everybody who thought they might need to know, did know and the Judge who heard the claim that the mere fact that he was homosexual was an indication of his bias politely laughed the argument so hard out of court that they haven't bothered to appeal it. California's amendment is done for, get used to it.
jacques renault

Justice, IL

#162204 Oct 5, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If Walker's ruling had survived intact through the Court of Appeal's ruling, we wouldn't be talking the evident fate of just California's amendment, but the fate of all of them. Given the disastrous court record of the proponents, he went for putting them all out of their misery. The three Judge panel didn't even take him to task for it, because he did get one thing right, there is no way you can call what went on in California constitutional.
<quoted text>Although he had never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, it wasn't a secret either. BOTH sides were aware of it before trial. Hell, readers of this forum could have known about it if they read the article I posted on here before the trial began.
<quoted text>Let's see, everybody who thought they might need to know, did know and the Judge who heard the claim that the mere fact that he was homosexual was an indication of his bias politely laughed the argument so hard out of court that they haven't bothered to appeal it. California's amendment is done for, get used to it.
Why?

Two US Supreme Court Justices have already said this will be as easy as Baker v Nelson

The score is 2-0 against you at this point
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162206 Oct 5, 2012
These wouldn't be two (out of Nine) of the same justices that thought the Affordable Care Act was Unconstitutional, would they?

How'd that turn out, again?

Continue advocating keeping a portion of the population as second class citizens. How American of you.
Fracking

Covina, CA

#162207 Oct 5, 2012
Just open it up and they pump it all in.
jacques renault

Justice, IL

#162208 Oct 5, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
These wouldn't be two (out of Nine) of the same justices that thought the Affordable Care Act was Unconstitutional, would they?
How'd that turn out, again?
Continue advocating keeping a portion of the population as second class citizens. How American of you.
Or French. You already lost in the French Supreme Court.

by the way, it's "cite"

not "site"
SpongeBob

Staten Island, NY

#162209 Oct 5, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, just sock it to me!
O.K. Here goes...

What do you think of this? AND have you ever heard this before?

Someone called into C-Span with a theory that said (PARAPHRASE) ethnic/religious groups that have been profoundly damaged or humiliated by another group suffer a “Form of PTSD called…???.”(she gave a name, which I don’t remember)

....But it’s a syndrome that lasts for generations. This would include groups like Native Americans (genocide) Jews (genocide) Armenians (genocide) African Americans (slavery)...Irish (whatever the Brits did).... anyway, you get the idea.

The suffering and pain inflicted on these groups lasts for generations and so far there has been no recognition of this kind of disorder and it should be addressed.

An example she gave was GW Bush’s use of the word “crusade” after the 9/11 attack. The Christian Science Monitor said…
“ Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.
His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years…..

...And so it goes on and on...the damaged groups, just like PTSD victims, relive past hurts that, and can live on through generations....

I just saw in the paper the grandson of a Concentration Camp victim had his grandmother's number tattooed on his own arm...

Your thoughts please...

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.

Glendale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Badillo Elementary School get smarter with SMAR... (Jan '10) 6 min Dolores Brown 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 7 min Julio the Artist 19,888
News Amazing Women - Youth: Maribel Borja (Sep '10) 4 hr Scotty Elpo 2
Scientology 7 hr Joel W 3
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 10 hr tom wingo 29,716
News Small earthquake rattles the greater Los Angele... 15 hr are they connected 1
assault on female Thurs. 4-30-2015 betw. 6:30 +... 15 hr pascal 1
More from around the web

Glendale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]