Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 7,159)

Showing posts 143,161 - 143,180 of199,131
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162230
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Time to pass the bong...
I agree, you have had enough.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162232
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions. I know you have trouble with reading comprehension.
BTW, Justice Scalia would not agree with you, and his opinion actually matters while yours does not.
All rights have restrictions, what's your point?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162233
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you always stop there, why do refuse to include the rest of the statement?
Fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL!!
I do it because I know it will get a caps lock multi exclamation mark response out of you. And I enjoy a little chuckle.
And that other part doesn't change the fact that marriage is a right. It's not true, however. We can exist and survive without marriage. The Court can determine law, but not reality.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162235
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
I'm not wrong. That is why you have still been unable to provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which addresses the issue of marriage.
Sigh. So you're actually so stupid that you don't understand the role of the Supreme Court and it's decisions? Good for you. Do you also think that you have no right to have children because you can't provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which address it? Of course, you will not be man enough to admit you're grasping at straws. No matter.
It's just as effective as your repeating over and over that I have a reading comprehension problem as if it will become a true statement if you say it enough. The problem isn't with reading comprehension, it's that you can't take the same position twice in a row.
A summary of you inconsistent statements:
akpilot wrote:
There is no RIGHT to marriage....
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.Skinner v. Oklahoma.......
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions.....
Fundamental to our very EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL!!......
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution.......
the SCOTUS has fabricated this right to marriage, but they have done so with caveats.......
I'm not wrong....
You can't even agree with YOURSELF.

Notice how everyone is rating your posts as clueless and agreeing with mine? There's a reason for that. You are wrong.
akpilot wrote:
And I don't know what you are trying to prove with your "Milk Run" nonsense, everyone can use google.
An AK Pilot wouldn't need to.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162236
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

*your*

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162238
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I do it because I know it will get a caps lock multi exclamation mark response out of you. And I enjoy a little chuckle.
And that other part doesn't change the fact that marriage is a right. It's not true, however. We can exist and survive without marriage. The Court can determine law, but not reality.
So, you don't like the Loving v Virginia decision anymore?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162239
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

6

Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Sigh. So you're actually so stupid that you don't understand the role of the Supreme Court and it's decisions? Good for you. Do you also think that you have no right to have children because you can't provide the specific Article and Section of the Constitution which address it? Of course, you will not be man enough to admit you're grasping at straws. No matter.
It's just as effective as your repeating over and over that I have a reading comprehension problem as if it will become a true statement if you say it enough. The problem isn't with reading comprehension, it's that you can't take the same position twice in a row.
A summary of you inconsistent statements:
<quoted text>You can't even agree with YOURSELF.
Notice how everyone is rating your posts as clueless and agreeing with mine? There's a reason for that. You are wrong.
<quoted text>An AK Pilot wouldn't need to.
Yawn..

The only one grasping at straws here is you.

I notice you still can't cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that declares marriage is a right. We are still waiting.

If I were wrong I would admit it, but I am not. I have been very clear in my statements and thus far you have failed to refute any of them with anything other than your emotions and opinions. You debate like a 3rd grader trying to get a candy bar.

So, let's recap. I have been very clear that there is no Constitutional right to marriage. FACT, and unless you can find that Article of the Constitution that deals with marriage, I am correct and thus have nothing to retract.

I have also been very clear in stating that the SCOTUS has declared there is a "right" to marriage, something they fabricated, but there none the less. However, this "right" is very restrictive, and has never extended to anything other than that or one man and one woman, thus meeting the criteria making a marriage a "right"- essential to our existence and survival- set forth in Skinner v Oklahoma.

I'm sorry that your feeble mind is having trouble keeping up with the conversation.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162240
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
And I don't know what you are trying to prove with your "Milk Run" nonsense, everyone can use google. Not that I have anything to prove to you, my paycheck comes in with or without your approval.
Also if you had any intelligence at all, you would see that I am not located in Alaska anymore, nor have a been for quite a few years. So again, what are you trying to prove?
That someone in California calling themselves an AK pilot who doesn't know what the Cut is or calls the Milk Run "nonsense", smells like the cargo hold after a load from Cordova. I'll save you the trip to Google...Cordova is where fish get loaded up.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162241
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how everyone is rating your posts as clueless and agreeing with mine?
What are you, 12? Seriously, you think the judge-its have any bearing on reality?

You have got to be kidding me. I could get good judge-its too, all I would have to do is pick a different name and come in here proclaiming the greatness of same sex marriage. What a joke...

You really need to move out of your parents basement.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162242
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
I notice you still can't cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that declares marriage is a right. We are still waiting.
Cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that declares you have the right to have children.
We're waiting.
Are you truly THAT stupid? Jr. High Civics is completely lost on you? You are wholly ignorant as to the role of the Supreme Court? Really? That's the line you've chosen here. That your too goddamned stupid to understand the Supreme Court ruling that YOU KEEP CITING.

Your attempt to pretend that there is a difference between Rights and "rights" is just pathetic. I mean, really. Listen to yourself. Rights are Rights, no matter whom 'fabricates' them. The rights 'fabricated' by the Founders are no more or less valid than those 'fabricated' by the Supreme Court or those 'fabricated' by the Civil Rights Act.
You're spinning like a top in a fruitless attempt to convince yourself you're clever. You aren't.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162243
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>That someone in California calling themselves an AK pilot who doesn't know what the Cut is or calls the Milk Run "nonsense", smells like the cargo hold after a load from Cordova. I'll save you the trip to Google...Cordova is where fish get loaded up.
Who are you trying to impress? I haven't lived in Eagle River for a number of years. I could talk all day about milk runs, but it proves nothing you idiot. Like I said, anyone can google what a milk run is and answer your question.

Why don't you ask something that can't be answered with google? Oh wait, you can't, because you would have no idea what to ask.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162244
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>That someone in California calling themselves an AK pilot who doesn't know what the Cut is or calls the Milk Run "nonsense", smells like the cargo hold after a load from Cordova. I'll save you the trip to Google...Cordova is where fish get loaded up.
You're an idiot.

I didn't call the milk run "nonsense", I called your question about it nonsense.

Again, your reading comprehension skills have failed you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162245
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that declares you have the right to have children.
We're waiting.
Are you truly THAT stupid? Jr. High Civics is completely lost on you? You are wholly ignorant as to the role of the Supreme Court? Really? That's the line you've chosen here. That your too goddamned stupid to understand the Supreme Court ruling that YOU KEEP CITING.
Your attempt to pretend that there is a difference between Rights and "rights" is just pathetic. I mean, really. Listen to yourself. Rights are Rights, no matter whom 'fabricates' them. The rights 'fabricated' by the Founders are no more or less valid than those 'fabricated' by the Supreme Court or those 'fabricated' by the Civil Rights Act.
You're spinning like a top in a fruitless attempt to convince yourself you're clever. You aren't.
So you admit there is no Constitutional right to marriage. Got it.

But you can keep dancing if you like, it's pretty entertaining.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162246
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
I could talk all day about milk runs, but it proves nothing you idiot.
A guy who claims that a right exists only if it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution and can't understand the meaning of Supreme Court Decisions that HE CITES has no business calling anyone else an idiot.

You're a Clown.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162247
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
So you admit there is no Constitutional right to marriage. Got it.
Clinging to being too stupid to understand the Role of the Supreme Court? Too stupid to use a question mark as well, I see.

Good for you.

Defending relegating your fellow Americans to Second Class Citizens. You must be so proud.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162248
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>A guy who claims that a right exists only if it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution and can't understand the meaning of Supreme Court Decisions that HE CITES has no business calling anyone else an idiot.
You're a Clown.
Oh my god you are an idiot.

Have you ever read the Constitution? How about the 9th and 10th Amendments?

The Constitution doesn't enumerate "right's" it enumerates power to the federal government. In this case, marriage is NOT listed, thus it is NOT a power of the Federal Government- that includes the SCOTUS.

The Federal Government lacking said power leaves that power to the states and the people- the regulation of marriage. Since the "people" have decided to allow the State the purview to regulate marriage it is now a State power. The people still retaining the ultimate power can choose either through direct intervention - such as the Proposition process in California -or- indirect intervention through elected officials- to change and vary said regulations regarding marriage.

The issue that we have in California that can be argued to drag the Constitution into the issue is the fact that this proposition disenfranchises a group of people from marriage while another group of the same status may engage in said act.

In other words, since you aren't very smart- since there are legally married same sex couples in the State, it could be argued that there is a violation of the 14th Amendment in not allowing other same sex couples in the state to do the same.

What this argument does not do, is make it a 14th Amendment issue that ALL same sex couples must be allowed to marry in all the States. There is no such power contained in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to regulate marriage laws to the states.

BTW, this is the exact same argument that caused DOMA to be ruled unconstitutional. Just though you should no that before you take to attempting to dismantle it because it doesn't audit with your fantasy world.

There is NO Constitutional right to marriage.

You really need to get an education.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162249
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Clinging to being too stupid to understand the Role of the Supreme Court? Too stupid to use a question mark as well, I see.
Good for you.
Defending relegating your fellow Americans to Second Class Citizens. You must be so proud.
Why would I use a question mark you idiot? I made a statement.

Your grammar isn't any better than your comprehension skills.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162251
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
But you can keep dancing if you like, it's pretty entertaining.
I've been quite consistent.

Dancing would accurately describe your flip flopping.

FLIP:
akpilot wrote:
There is no RIGHT to marriage
FLOP:
akpilot wrote:
"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
FLIP:
akpilot wrote:
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions.
FLOP:
akpilot wrote:
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution
FLIP:
akpilot wrote:
So, you don't like the Loving v Virginia decision anymore?
FLIP FLOP FLIPPIDY FLOO
akpilot wrote:
So, let's recap. I have been very clear that there is no Constitutional right to marriage.....the SCOTUS has declared there is a "right" to marriage,
Let us know when you've made up your mind.

HA HA HA HA Talk about delusional!
akpilot wrote:
I have been very clear in my statements and thus far you have failed to refute any of them with anything other than your emotions and opinions.
Your sad little "Rights are somehow different than 'rights'", is just pathetic. Really. You're making an ass of yourself. It's right up there with a Clintonesque "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162252
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

akpilot wrote:
The Constitution doesn't enumerate "right's" it enumerates power to the federal government.
What are the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution known as, dipshit? "The Bill of powers"? You are REALLY embarrassing yourself now.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162253
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>I've been quite consistent.
Dancing would accurately describe your flip flopping.
FLIP:
<quoted text>
FLOP:
<quoted text>
FLIP:
<quoted text>
FLOP:
<quoted text>
FLIP:
<quoted text>
FLIP FLOP FLIPPIDY FLOO<quoted text>
Let us know when you've made up your mind.
HA HA HA HA Talk about delusional!<quoted text>
Your sad little "Rights are somehow different than 'rights'", is just pathetic. Really. You're making an ass of yourself. It's right up there with a Clintonesque "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
OK child, I better let you get some sleep. You will need it for when you go back to high school next week.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 143,161 - 143,180 of199,131
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Glendale Discussions

Search the Glendale Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Seniors Lack Affordable Housing Options 10 min Latter Day Faints 20
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 41 min Trojan 26,144
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Samuel 17,929
Great-grandad Mick's ever growing dynasty 3 hr Spikey mite co 10
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 5 hr Pack coal in deeper 7,330
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Wed Hole 15,676
How to File A Complaint About DIRECTV (Jul '08) Tue Gabe 195
•••
•••

Glendale News Video

•••
•••

Glendale Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Glendale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••