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
143,201 - 143,220 of 200,586 Comments Last updated 9 hrs ago

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162295 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the Ninth Amendment, moron.
"The ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Damn near verbatim, the exact opposite of your assertions. How can you be SO in denial?
<quoted text>Stick with that, simpleton.
Conveniently, it also addresses your previous delusions that a right has to be specifically enumerated to exist. The Framers saw idiots like you coming over two hundred years ago.
Enough, though. You are FAR too stupid to continue. You're embarrassing yourself to the point where it's becoming more pitiful and pathetic than funny.
This is like beating up on the helmet wearing kids who get off the little bus. They can't help what they are any more than you can. Go ahead and tell yourself that you're clever in the face of all the evidence you've provided us to the contrary. Cling to your delusions and denial. If being a laughing stock gets you through your day, hey, you have that right.
Please resist the urge to explain to us how you don't really have that right. You do. Just accept and exercise it.
You have shown that you are really good at cut and paste.

How about you tell us what the 9th Amendment means and why Madison included it?

I won't expect you to get into the entire discussion which would include the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist views as it pertains to the drafting and debate over the bill of rights, that would be too much for you.

You have an elementary level understanding of the Constitution at best. You stand on your playground screaming- Look, look, the Constitution was designed to grant "right's" because it's called the bill of right's. You are a child.

You will never advance beyond that childish understanding unless you educate yourself and apply critical thinking skills. Try reading those documents that I cited for you, it is painfully obvious that you have not.

The Constitution was designed to frame our government and specifically enumerate certain powers. By the enumeration of these limited powers the right's of the people would be secure. The addition of the Bill of Right's was due to the fact that many felt these limited enumerated powers would not be enough, and the government would grow and become limitless. They felt it important to be even more specific in certain areas, including very specific and important areas where the Federal Government was limited, to further ensure the protection of those right's.

Marriage does not fall under the purview of the Federal Government, thus the 9th and 10th Amendment delegate that power to the people and the State.

Now go study, you need it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162296 Oct 6, 2012
Haarboored wrote:
Rciko the sickO, how is it hanging back there?
Have you frozen your lips to something?
Damn, you are just the cleverest little clot, aren't you/ Have you ever thought of writing professionally? Such intelligence, such insight, such wit. We're all honored to be in the presence of such a master. How can I ever possibly respond to such devastating repartee?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162297 Oct 6, 2012
Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:
You're simply lying, gays lobbied for DADT. When you lie, you get rebuffed.
(rest of post ripped off from: http://conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda )
Buttercup, you just plagiarized an article from Conservapedia. Conservapedia! You should probably just lie down and wait for it all to be over, you're lost and you've lost.
minority rights

Cabot, AR

#162298 Oct 6, 2012
Ok how about because time after time the majority has been wrong. Look at the plight of the American Indian or Blacks, Woman's rights or Religous ones if not the same as the masses .at one time the majority were against all these folks.just because you are in the majority does not make your cause just or right, law are passed and overturned to protect the rights of minorities . its why our system is set up the way it is. trent gatewood

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#162299 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Awwwww, look how cute you are.
No problem Skip, just trying to lighten it up. You take this silly topix thread way too seriously. Like it matters or something.

You're about to have a stroke at 15 years old. Funny!

Chill Skippy.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162300 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
The Constitution doesn't enumerate "right's"
You've already said all that needs to be said. Enjoy your break with reality and your delusions.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162301 Oct 6, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
No problem Skip, just trying to lighten it up. You take this silly topix thread way too seriously. Like it matters or something.
You're about to have a stroke at 15 years old. Funny!
Chill Skippy.
Laughing at retards is a symptom of a stoke?

That's some top notch medical advice, Dr. Mook.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#162302 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you don't like the Loving v Virginia decision anymore?
Love it.
But that doesn't change the fact we can exist and survive without marriage.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#162303 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But, the 14th Amendment says:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That would include the laws governing marriage.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162304 Oct 6, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
But, the 14th Amendment says:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
That would include the laws governing marriage.
You're wasting your time.

Your discussing the Constitution with a guy who starts with "The Constitution does NOT enumerate Rights."
He is delusional and incapable of rational thought.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162305 Oct 6, 2012
*You're*

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#162306 Oct 6, 2012
LlE Buster wrote:
<quoted text>You said Bill of Powers,
LOL. Frisbee didn't say the first ten amendments were called the Bill of Powers. Frisbee was making a point that went over your head.
LlE Buster wrote:
so now you are saying that your teachers are idiots. There is no such thing as Bill of Powers.
LOL.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#162307 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wasting your time.
Your discussing the Constitution with a guy who starts with "The Constitution does NOT enumerate Rights."
He is delusional and incapable of rational thought.
True. So true.
But other people might read the posts.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#162308 Oct 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Government gains value from marriage because that institution gives children a stable home.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
Brian_G wrote:
Even an infertile husband and wife can give an adopted child something no same sex couple can; a mother and father.
Circular reasoning.

And so what?
Allowing gay marriage won't stop infertile straight couples from adopting children.
And single people can adopt.
Gay marriage and the "father/mother" issue are different.
.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And single parent households are good for society how? Is crime, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependence, uneducated dropouts and violence a social good?
Actually, an argument FOR gay marriage.

..
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no law stopping same sex couples from considering themselves married, even if the law doesn't permit government to recognize those unions as marriage.
And adopting. So, what's your point?

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no justification for redefining marriage.
It's clear you don't really feel that way.

.
Brian_G wrote:
.
<quoted text>Our Constitution recognizes freedom of association, it doesn't create any right to define marriage laws for everyone based on sexual predilection.
.
<quoted text>The government has standards, DOMA defines marriage as one man and one woman.
.
<quoted text>Homosexuals have the same right to marry as everyone else, there is no gender equality right in the Constitution. There's no orientation test for marriage either.
Yes, there is equality for all citizens in the 14th Amendment.
Homer

Cedar Hill, TX

#162309 Oct 6, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
True. So true.
But other people might read the posts.
I heard you've got a 14" pen!s and only 1 testicle.

hahahahahahaha

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#162310 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, you are one of the most ignorant people here. Are you vying for Roses' title?
I guess you still haven't read the federalist papers?
The federalist papers aren't law.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#162311 Oct 6, 2012
Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:
<quoted text>You're simply lying, gays lobbied for DADT. When you lie, you get rebuffed.
Joseph P. Gudel, in That Which is Unnatural[1] contended that the homosexual movement,
has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this.
In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed,
We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right as heterosexual Americans already have to see government and society affirm our lives.[2]
In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:
What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.[3]
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools.
Rose's Law...
Oh, and name one special right gay people are asking for.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#162313 Oct 6, 2012
Homer wrote:
<quoted text>I heard you've got a 14" pen!s and only 1 testicle.
hahahahahahaha
If I did, it would be 13 1/2" longer than yours, and I'd have one more testicle.
kwcvtwhdvo

Pittsfield, MA

#162314 Oct 6, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose's Law...
Oh, and name one special right gay people are asking for.
To raise children. Take them to Disney. Take them in the woods. Teach them your desires in school. Bath houses. Young teens getting implants or hormone injections.
Let's see, homo's say it's non of our business. Yet are feverishly attempting to be near children. It is our business!
Sooo special.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162315 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
You've already said all that needs to be said. Enjoy your break with reality and your delusions.
Like I said, you are incapable of critical thought.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Producers needed A.S.A.P. 3 hr Harem 1
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 3 hr Truthforthought 18,871
Santa Monica Activists Plan Vigil for Mural 6 hr Lolana 2
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Bruin Nation 27,084
Valley Light Industries facing challenges (Feb '09) 9 hr Cypress Critic 552
Is the CHSRA Really Considering the San Gabriel... 13 hr Acton Watchdog 1
Review: Financial Plus Investment (Jul '08) 18 hr Serpico 2,368
•••

Glendale News Video

•••
•••

Glendale Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Glendale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Glendale News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Glendale
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••