Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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.

Full Story
Big D

Modesto, CA

#189961 Apr 24, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Hey let the dummies argue it before SCOTUS, it makes the ruling that much easier. Right up there with the God argument.
I was actually surprised they brought it up in front of the Supreme court.... you don’t bring up an argument that you are sure to lose.

Rule #1 for a lawyer is never ask a question you already know the answer too, and they failed that one?

They were stupid for even mentioning it, there has never been a law that would deny a couple the right to marry based on intent or ability to have children. It was lost before they even said it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#189962 Apr 24, 2013
Meant to say

"A lawyer should never ask a question that he does not already know the answer to”
Big D

Modesto, CA

#189963 Apr 24, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Way to add to the conversation. You forgot YUK YUK YUk.
He is just upset that the argument was a total failure, he doesn’t understand why
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189964 Apr 24, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Way to add to the conversation. You forgot YUK YUK YUk.
You call your barely literate prattle "conversation"?

YUK!YUK!YUK!
An observer

Mountain View, CA

#189965 Apr 24, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Newsflash!
We live in US of A, procreation isn't a requirement for marriage. Ergo the rest of your comment regarding financial benefits for women with children is a bit irrelevant in the matter of the question of validating same sex marriage in the US.
The real motive for most couples in the US, apparently, is a pronouncement of love which is recognised in marriage. The legal ramifications of the contract are icing on the cake.
Goverment could not and should not regulate the love between people - it is unconstitutional, it is private mater between individuals and nobody have right to dictate that relationship. I think we are on the same page here?
The marriage as goverment protected institution is not a registry of people in love, it is goverment enforced contract to protect procreation and set of tax breaks with same intention.
The reason why general public invest in procreation, because the future of the nation depends on it. The today children will pay tax tomorrow and cover the cost of these tax brakes

By the way, check out the report from SSA - we are at the real danger that in 50 years for every working person it would be 4 not working senior and two of them with Alzheimer's. Although US so far has a good chance to avoid it all Europe certainly goes to that future.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#189966 Apr 24, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because someone get's elected, appointed, or is issued a black robe doesn't make them "a whole lot more knowledgeable."
Those in power will always seek more of it if left unchecked, out founders warned of this, and we have failed in our duties. We now have a majority willing to bow to their overlords. we are truly ripe for a dictator.
Take same sex marriage for instance. Here are the homosexuals, they look at the heterosexuals and say, "Hmm, look, they get a piece of paper from the government which states they are "married". Then they get to use that piece of paper to get a bunch of "stuff" from the government." -now- rather than state the obvious- "Hey, I have this little thing here called the Constitution (either state or US), and Mr. Government, I can't find anything in here where it says you have the power to control, regulate, define, or otherwise provide benefits in regards to the personal relationships of your citizens! So, how about you get yourself back in line with your enumerated powers and get the hell out of the personal lives of your citizens."
Nope, instead the homosexual community says: "Hey, Mr. Government, could you please regulate my personal life too?"
And you fools claim you will be more FREE if the government "ALLOWS" you to marry. Enjoy your servitude.
<quoted text>
No, I have explained this to you before, perhaps it didn't sink in. The SCOTUS identified the government's power to REGULATE marriage in 14 rulings.
And don't pretend to know what my "beliefs" are, you haven't a clue. Unlike you, I do not argue a position based on my personal wants, desires, or beliefs. I argue them based on the Constitutional principles upon which this Republic was founded.
BTW, I asked you a question that you simply ignored. You have claimed all these mystical powers of the judiciary, and I asked a very simple question. Where are these claimed powers found in Article III of the US Constitution?
OK, then let's take back the Fourteenth Amendment and let people own one another. Let's allow slavery to flourish in the country again. Let's allow segregation of schools. Let's allow discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.

Such pesky government interference...

Look, our country EVOLVES. It doesn't stay stagnant. Decisions are made and processes are created in a manner that you may not agree with. But you are powerless to do anything about them.

The LGBT Community is aware of the processes necessary to get the rights and protections of marriage that we feel, as citizens, we deserve.

We will work within those systems, whether you believe they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals.

Rightly or wrongly, these are the processes that we have access to at this point in the game.

We like to refer to it as our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189967 Apr 24, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>That's nice, now go eat your Cream of wheat.
Yuck! Cream of Wheat, eh? Sorry for you.

But I have teeth Jizzy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189968 Apr 24, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Inorite. Hey its worth a shot. The fool keeps centering his objection on procreation. How many times do we have to show him that procreation is not a requirement in marriage. Shat 2 teenage kids can have sex in the back seat of a car and make a baby
Inorite? Kewl!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#189969 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The supposed growth of your congregation is no indicator of denominational growth. Pick an open and affirming denomination, and let's look. Your choice.
I generalized nothing, you gay twirled.
Again.
Smile.
The start of any movement is, by definition, slow. Look at the history of any major change in policy. It doesn't start out with tens of millions of people spontaneously supporting an idea.

Even Christianity started out with a few followers.

You're a dying breed; at least for the foreseeable future.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189970 Apr 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He is just upset that the argument was a total failure, he doesn’t understand why
Yes, but Jizzy is always upset and never understands why.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#189973 Apr 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, then let's take back the Fourteenth Amendment and let people own one another. Let's allow slavery to flourish in the country again. Let's allow segregation of schools. Let's allow discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.
Such pesky government interference...
Look, our country EVOLVES. It doesn't stay stagnant. Decisions are made and processes are created in a manner that you may not agree with. But you are powerless to do anything about them.
The LGBT Community is aware of the processes necessary to get the rights and protections of marriage that we feel, as citizens, we deserve.
We will work within those systems, whether you believe they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals.
Rightly or wrongly, these are the processes that we have access to at this point in the game.
We like to refer to it as our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
That is the difference between the disgruntled and the rest of us, they only look back with longing to earlier times.

When abortions were done by criminal’s with coat hangers

When Homosexuals were persecuted legally

When minorities did not have equal rights or status

They long for those days, while the rest of us are looking forward to a brighter future.
food gal

Los Angeles, CA

#189976 Apr 24, 2013
Foodies wrote:
If you write an article on "Restaurant Inspection Grades in Glendora" wouldn't it be useful to name those that did poorly?
I'll save everyone the trouble and call out those that rated below 89 which is a B rating.
1) Palms Family Restaurant scored 82, B rating. No surprise here, this place will make you sick just opening their sticky menus!
2) Chili's scored 83, B rating. No excuse a chain restaurant this big should do so poorly. However I'm not surprised.
3) Coco's scored 86, B rating. Another chain restaurant that should know better, though if places were rated on service this place would probably get an F.
4) Sushi Umi scored 88, B rating. I really love Sushi but when it comes to dealing with raw fish, a B rating is a huge red flag for me.
There were 10 places had a score of 90 which is still an A, but barely.
5) Glendora Country Club was one of them.
To put all of this in perspective, both 7-Eleven's received a 99 and 100 and we all know they let barely warm hot dogs tumble on that roller rack for who-knows how long... so how bad are these other places to not score as well?
Check the local hospitals for more rating comments coming from those that have eaten there and are in the process of being treated.
Thanx, Foodies! The old Herald Examiner (in Los Angeles) used to regularly publish health inspection reports for restaurants/cafes within the city that had issues and violations. A real eye opener (and stomach churner)!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189977 Apr 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The start of any movement is, by definition, slow. Look at the history of any major change in policy. It doesn't start out with tens of millions of people spontaneously supporting an idea.
Even Christianity started out with a few followers.
You're a dying breed; at least for the foreseeable future.
That's what I try to tell Big D about polygamy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189978 Apr 24, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Custom made or Ebay?
Real.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189979 Apr 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the difference between the disgruntled and the rest of us, they only look back with longing to earlier times.
When abortions were done by criminal’s with coat hangers
When Homosexuals were persecuted legally
When minorities did not have equal rights or status
They long for those days, while the rest of us are looking forward to a brighter future.
Oy vey!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189980 Apr 24, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Conversation? Umm not with you. Stay in school, even if it takes you 6 years to get out of the 5Th grade.
Weak. Very dopey. Try harder. Much harder. You are resorting to dopey ad hominem, please try to make it funny. Seriously!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189981 Apr 24, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>I find it best just to scratch him behind the ears and give him a chew toy.
You shouldn't treat Big D like a dog. It's mean.
Seymour DUCK

United States

#189982 Apr 24, 2013
Quack, QUACK, QUaCK, quAck. QUACK! GO BUiLD a PoND , They will Flock.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#189984 Apr 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Miss Ad Hominem attempts a poor taste joke, it fails being that Miss Ad Hominem is in poor taste himself.
So lets see. Lets sum up X-Box schtick so far today.
We should allow same sex marriage because Mr Hudson is stupid.
We should allow same sex marriage because Frankie is drug addled.
We should allow same sex marriage because Frankie is stupid.
We should...
Oh hell, you get the drift.
Gee.... I thought you were in favor of SSM. Guess it was a big, fat lie after all. What a surprise!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#189985 Apr 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the difference between the disgruntled and the rest of us, they only look back with longing to earlier times.
When abortions were done by criminal’s with coat hangers
When Homosexuals were persecuted legally
When minorities did not have equal rights or status
They long for those days, while the rest of us are looking forward to a brighter future.
The funny part is they think they're hiding their true feelings.

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.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
corruption with Riverside county CPS 10 hr SAD BUT TRUE 11
How come all Hemet sex offenders addresses aren... (Dec '08) Thu lARRY mILLER9626 12
Review: R G Deck Coatings Inc Thu Annonymous 1
San Jacinto Woman Accused of Stabbing Boyfriend... Dec 24 lupita garcia 1
One of Two Suspects Arrested in Jack-in-the-Box... Dec 23 Amazed 12
San JacintoUnlock parks, San Jacinto residents say Dec 22 SJskin 1
Water main Break Shadow Mountain Way Dec 22 hemetone 2

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:04 am PST