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
161,621 - 161,640 of 200,579 Comments Last updated 15 min ago

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185088
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a quote you missed;
"This can be tested and proven within six months. Itís easy to test."
The lesbian trapped in the straight man was flattered that you acknowledged her. But not that much, she's a lesbian you know.
Maybe if you dressed up as a queen???
Smile.
To say, "This CAN BE TESTED and proven within six months. Itís easy to test" is different than saying, "This has been TESTED AND PROVEN."

And there's nothing anywhere (other than on sites operated by unscientific, religious zealots) that would suggest that an epigentic explanation of homosexuality MEANS that the processes involved in creating homosexuality is a mistake. We may simply be looking at a naturally occurring process.

You're the only one, so far, who seems convinced that this theory indicates that homosexuality is unnatural.

It would be like scientist definitively discovering the processes involved that result in some babies being born left-handed. Would there then be a moral judgment passed against left-handed babies?

Finally, I'm still waiting for the link so that I can read what it is that you are reading. Your last link was broken.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185089
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. Never been a problem.
If ss friendships deserve those benefits without ever being capable of mutual procreation and it's special needs, then legally EVERYONE deserves them.
Apparently you think two men need the protection and provision that women and children do... Man up VV, man up!!!
<quoted text>
Where in hell did you get that from what I said?
Smile.
I found the "U.S. News" article that you keep referring to. It can be found here: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/1...

A quote that you conveniently omitted from the article is "Most mainstream biologists have shied away from studying it because of the social stigma," he says. "It's been swept under the rug, people are still stuck on this idea that it's unnatural. WELL THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN NATURE, IT'S VERY COMMON."

Homosexual behavior has been observed in black swans, penguins, sheep, and other animals, he says.

Rice's model STILL NEEDS TO BE TESTED ON REAL-LIFE PARENT-OFFSPRING PAIRS, but he says this epigenetic link makes more sense than any other explanation, and that his team has mapped out a way for other scientists to test their work.

----------

So, not even William Rice thinks that homosexuality is "unnatural" or a mistake. And he agrees that more study needs to be completed in order to prove this THEORY.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185090
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people don't need a biology class to know that anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Nor do they confuse a septic system for a playground...
Smirk.
Um, I don't know if you're ready for this, but the vagina and penis are clearly a part of nature's "septic system" as well; unless you and your wife are built differently from the rest of us and urinate out of your asses.

As I said earlier, talking to you is like talking to a 5 year old.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185091
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA has been unconstitutional since it was passed. It should not have taken this long for the SCOTUS to hear and toss it as nonsense.
Agreed DOMA wont survive this, prop 8 will either get kicked back to California over standing, which will overturn it, or they will agree with the appeal which will overturn it, prop 8 is likely going to fall either way.

Both minor wins, but sets the stage for challenges in other states
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185092
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, we should just ignore the past, nothing to see or learn there.
And there are those that worship the past, when women could not vote, or blacks were slaves, or unbelievers were burned at the stake, or when Christians were murdered for entertainment depending on how far back you go.

Generally though people that glorify the past are the ones that are afraid all the time, with backwards looking mentalities, never have their eyes on the future. Sad people, unhappy people, that have no future because they can only dream of the past.
BB Sweets

Sonoma, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185093
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

My mother says that if we had Representative Bachman in charge this would all go away, moot. She says that Michelle and her husband have proven that THOSE PEOPLE can be trained to act right. Like when Dickie's pomeranian gets on Aunt Myra's leg and does that stupid act over and over and over; all you have to do is kick him and its over. Mom says that if this doesnt work then they can join the deportation line for mexico which is where evrybody who acts, talks, smells, dresses, looks or is funny will be and will pay. There will be lines for special cases too where folks who just dont fit will be allowed to join or will be forced to join. Mom says that this will become the new national industry and will solve all our economy and happy home. So there.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185094
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And there are those that worship the past, when women could not vote, or blacks were slaves, or unbelievers were burned at the stake, or when Christians were murdered for entertainment depending on how far back you go.
Generally though people that glorify the past are the ones that are afraid all the time, with backwards looking mentalities, never have their eyes on the future. Sad people, unhappy people, that have no future because they can only dream of the past.
there is plenty to learn from the past...

like the fact that we dont want to go back there, like the republicans want to.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185095
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
there is plenty to learn from the past...
like the fact that we dont want to go back there, like the republicans want to.
Oh I agree, that is what our founders did, they looked around them, and into history, and made sure what they set up did not repeat those terrible mistakes.

and they made the document changeable, a living document so future generations could do the same
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185096
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>So does CA.
but wait??

doesnt that conflict with your normal line about california being a compleat mess? because the democrats are in charge?

the fact is?? if the legislature did their job??

we wouldnt have even had people vs kelly.

that court decision basically refered to the patients doctor, as to how much medicine can be grown by each patient.

which is what the legislature should have done in the first place.... that is how doctors handle aLL other types of medicine.

but hey, im not complaining, some states still throw you in jail if they catch you gardening your own medicine.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185097
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

There is a BIG issue with the "standing" arguments in court.

If the Supremes go that way, it is admittedly the easy way, decide no on has standing to defend prop 8 and down it goes, same with DOMA, decide that BLAG does not have standing and down it goes.

But that sets up one strange and powerful precedent.

That means any Governor, in any state can overturn any law he wants to, by having someone challenge it, and then refuse to defend it. Donít get me wrong.

I still think they may rule on standing... but if they do... they are opening a whole new can of worms.

Donít get me wrong, I think but the republican and democratic governors of California did the right thing refusing to defend it.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185098
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to, the court has already explained it. Again if you people would actually do some actual research instead of simply taking everything you read on a liberal blog and repeating it you might actually learn something.
"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."..."In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)óa clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id.[emphasis added]).[FN2] Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the{**7 NY3d at 372} values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union,[FN3] it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.[FN4][*13]"- Hernandez v Robles
wrong again. try reading the prop 8 transcripts and the DOMA transcripts as those are the trials we're discussing.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185099
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
There is a BIG issue with the "standing" arguments in court.
If the Supremes go that way, it is admittedly the easy way, decide no on has standing to defend prop 8 and down it goes, same with DOMA, decide that BLAG does not have standing and down it goes.
But that sets up one strange and powerful precedent.
That means any Governor, in any state can overturn any law he wants to, by having someone challenge it, and then refuse to defend it. Donít get me wrong.
I still think they may rule on standing... but if they do... they are opening a whole new can of worms.
Donít get me wrong, I think but the republican and democratic governors of California did the right thing refusing to defend it.
i agree. that is a worrisome can of worms. no way of knowing the long term effects of just ruling on the standing validity. any law is then suspect - and i think at least one of the justices pondered upon that as well.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185100
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with "should"- it is a CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.
The States have been all but castrated thanks to the 16th and 17th Amendment's.
The 16th allowed the Federal Government to directly tax the income of the populous. As such, now instead of the State being able to fund it's own programs thus retaining control, the Fed taxes at such a rate little is left for the State to take. Then the Fed dangles the carrot- do as we say or you won't get your citizens money back from us to run all those programs and projects.
This goes right in line with the 17th Amendment which basically created a second House of Representatives, thus removing the State's voice in the Federal government.
We could fix a lot of our issues by sending those two Amendments the way of prohibition.
the 17th amendment allows for local elections??

you are against local elections??

REALLY??

I guess it is not that surprising, as the tea partiers are trying to do away with local elections in michigan.

they have already succeeded in cutting half the black population OFF from their former local representation.

now they have "emergency managers", installed in those cities(inc now detroit)

they arnt doing it quit like hitler did in in 38??

but almost

it IS targeting black communities.

Michigan is one of those states in the rust belt that used to vote republican, but now votes democratic for president.

it is one of the states YOUR party must retake if it EVER hopes to win the whitehouse again.

THIS is NOT a GOOD way to reach out to minority voters to show them that they embody your republican values....

JUst the opposite.

you guys hope to wIN national elections while the members of your state coalitions are passing laws like THAT???

the voters actually repealed the emergency manager law...

.....but then the state legislature(because they dont like the 17th amendment) nullified that mandate by passing another emrgency manager law, THIS time adding that it COULDNT be repealed by popular demand.....what kind of government does things like that??
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185101
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong again. try reading the prop 8 transcripts and the DOMA transcripts as those are the trials we're discussing.
DOMA is a dead issue, as soon as they read the intent that was written for DOMA in 1996, it was going down.

That is animus, practically a written confession .... DOMA is toast

The question is really now only Prop 8
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185102
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
AK, I don't trust the Electoral College, I believe in Popular Vote...Even though the Framers gave it to us, to "..guard against a rash act by the people.."
AKKK doesnt likkk the local elections either...

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185103
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
WELL THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN NATURE, IT'S VERY COMMON."
Homosexual behavior has been observed in black swans, penguins, sheep, and other animals, he says.
One dude even took his dog back for being gay...Do you ever think how degrading it is to gay people that their lives and loving bonds are being compared with the instinctual shagging of puzzled birds and dogs?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185104
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA is a dead issue, as soon as they read the intent that was written for DOMA in 1996, it was going down.
That is animus, practically a written confession .... DOMA is toast
The question is really now only Prop 8
true. i'm just curious about the findings and writings from SCOTUS in regards to DOMA. it could set a precedent.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185105
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
but wait??
doesnt that conflict with your normal line about california being a compleat mess? because the democrats are in charge?
I guess that means CA is not a compleat mess, or did you mean complete? The Democrats here make sure they regulate rabbits and it's Indian casino's. They must be complete.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185106
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
there is plenty to learn from the past...
like the fact that we dont want to go back there, like the republicans want to.
Then why do the D's keep repeating history?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185107
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
true. i'm just curious about the findings and writings from SCOTUS in regards to DOMA. it could set a precedent.
yes.. it shares the precedent that prop 8 does, if they defeat it with standing.

But I doubt they will, animus is obvious, it will be easy for them to just strike it down outright.

I suppose it is also true however that animus can be used in quite a number of states.

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.

Other Recent Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 19 hr Bee Keepers 4,977
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Wed facts faced 15,929
McDonalds Tue tye 1 4
EBT Cards Tue TellThem 3
HEMET: Confusion over write-in votes cleared up (Nov '12) Tue Teabag Sanchez 10
Home Wrecker Mon mad mom 6
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Mon Mudflys to 7,901

Search the Hemet Forum:
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
•••

Hemet Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Hemet News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••