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
166,521 - 166,540 of 200,366 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190695
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply put, there is no such thing as a sane chimera.
<Looks at top of page>

Bla bla bla. You know the drill.
PineCones

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190696
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

The frigging train is pulling out so jump aboard, now.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190697
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
May? He is talking about 7 other than the ones with bans currently in place, he is counting on California legislature agreeing with such a measure LOL and Nevada... saying he only needs 7 is a joke, he won’t even get the current 31 that have bans in place ... and some of those bans won’t be in place for long, that 31 is a declining number.
Is there a place we can put down a wager on that not happening?
( chuckle )
It is a pipe dream for him, but just a joke, it doesn’t have the support to pass
To be honest I don't think many on here have a true understanding of AK's position. Yeah, I know, he throws out insults at most here who don't agree with his ideas, but that isn't unique to him or to either side of the debate. I do not really think he's opposed to same sex couples gaining access to marriage. Not at all. What he's not in favor of are end runs and legal gymnastics getting around democratic approaches. I believe he sees it as a state's rights issue more than a federal one.

He makes a few good points on matters but it appears, to me anyway, that the intent behind them isn't received. If I tell you that by stepping off the curb in heavy traffic that there is a good chance you'll get hit, it is not the same as stating I want you to get hit. Ergo the warning about mandates handed down through the judiciary while many aren't ready to accept them may lead to quite the backlash. There are some fairly conservative areas in many states that have good resources and are quite capable of influencing outcomes both in legislative actions and elections.

What is better? Acceptance through force or through enlightenment?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190698
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You make that statement as though anyone in American as the right to vote on others rights. Besides, you assume all the ignorant haters who voted against other American’s rights will be alive or able to do the same in the future. If you weren’t such an arrogant, self-important windbag you might pause long enough to realize that. The USA is changing whether you like it or not. And there will be Gay Marriage Rights in all 50 states whether you “vote” for it or it gets jammed down your throat. Pontificate on that douche bag.
Americans voted to maintain the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. That's it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190699
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And the name is what they fear... they are frightened half to death.. by a word.
The name does not belong to them, any religions and non-religious use the same word, that word is not their personal property, and from a recognition perspective, it is a legal term.
Yes a legal term which as a specific meaning, at least in 32 states, of marriage as a union of husband and wife. Why is that so troubling, or difficult to comprehend?
Our laws are applied equally ( or are supposed to be ) regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin.
Great, mandate health insurance companies pay for prostate exams for women. The law should be applied equally. Also require, by law, every women's rest room/locker room have the same number of urinals as every men's room/locker room. Equal is equal.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190700
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't use the word Monster, why monster? are we living in an anime. Mutation?, may be, but really I think diversity, genetic rarity. Monster has obvious negative implications and mutation, well were you born with regular DNA then something happened to change it. You've said chimera, I'm thinking this is what I call mosaic: a variable mix of XX and XY in any given sample. If that's the case then why use the term monster mutation, other than for dramatic effect. Well, you have the right to call yourself what you like, I was questioning the mental health of it, but then if you're happy I suppose it doesn't matter. Personally I call myself Intersexed with a genetic mosaic.
All of this^^^ is exactly why I think KiMare is overladen with bovine excretia. He is either uninformed and a chimera or he's uninformed. My thoughts are that if he were actually a chimera he'd know enough about the term to not make such mistakes. Therefore, it appears to me that he's a bit of an ill informed liar.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190701
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
-George Carlin
Yeah yeah, off topic but so much better than Big D's dopey bluster.
George Carlin is one of my favorites. Funny as hell and on the mark about reality. RIP

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190702
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans voted to maintain the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. That's it.
We did? When was that?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190703
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes a legal term which as a specific meaning, at least in 32 states, of marriage as a union of husband and wife. Why is that so troubling, or difficult to comprehend?
<quoted text>
Great, mandate health insurance companies pay for prostate exams for women. The law should be applied equally. Also require, by law, every women's rest room/locker room have the same number of urinals as every men's room/locker room. Equal is equal.
Yes 32 and dropping, we know, California is about to reverse, likely this year, as is Nevada shortly thereafter as both he legislature and now even the voting population are opposed to their ban, probably followed by Oregon in a year or so, the challenge is already underway there. That will bring your number down to 29 and still dropping

There is nothing that is difficult to comprehend, more and more states are joining ranks in recognizing same sex marriage, Delaware, Rode Island, Pennsylvania will have full recognition shortly and states that have bans are being challenged now, after the SC rules on DOMA federal recognition will also be in place.

Not sure why you can’t comprehend that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190704
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
We did? When was that?
Californians did it twice in 2000 and 2008. It was in all the papers.
Spot

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190705
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Freckle's are better for you.
charlie

Sweden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190706
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

all i do is win
Howdy

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190707
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans voted to maintain the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. That's it.
Private American citizens do not vote on Federal Amendments to the Constitution.

That's it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190708
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Californians did it twice in 2000 and 2008. It was in all the papers.
And they will vote on it again if the Supreme Court does not uphold the overturn of Prop 8, and all polls now show Prop 8 now being soundly defeated.

It is just a matter of time, justice will prevail.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190709
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Californians did it twice in 2000 and 2008. It was in all the papers.
Yeah, I know Californians did, but the rest of us haven't. You should try being more specific in the future.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190710
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
Private American citizens do not vote on Federal Amendments to the Constitution.
That's it.
Howdy.........Doody

What about general Americans? Some where along the way Americans voted. At least at the state level.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190711
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I know Californians did, but the rest of us haven't. You should try being more specific in the future.
Yes, my bad....citizens in 32 states maybe?
Howdy

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190712
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Howdy.........Doody
What about general Americans? Some where along the way Americans voted. At least at the state level.
States can put into place any law they deem necessary. However, if that law (or state constitutional amendment) is found to be contrary to the U.S. Constitution, then those laws or state amendments are declared as "Unconstitutional". As in Prop 8 in California.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190713
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And they will vote on it again if the Supreme Court does not uphold the overturn of Prop 8, and all polls now show Prop 8 now being soundly defeated.
Will they? Opinion polls and voting polls don't always mesh.
It is just a matter of time, justice will prevail.
Don't forget truth and the American way Super D.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190714
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-...

A federal trial court ruled that Nevada can limit marriage to opposite-sex couples in a ruling made public hours before the Supreme Court is due to consider whether it will hear any of several cases addressing same-sex couples' marriage rights.

Judge Robert C. Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, found that the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not "[prohibit] the People of the State of Nevada from maintaining statutes that reserve the institution of civil marriage to one-man–one-woman relationships."

Jones ruled that a prior Supreme Court precedent — a 1972 case, Baker v. Nelson, that denied a same-sex couple's marriage claim as lacking any "substantial federal question" — controlled his decision. Even if not, he ruled that the "exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage" was constitutional "[b]ecause the maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman is a legitimate state interest."

In reaching his decision, Jones found that a classification like Nevada's marriage law, which distinguishes between heterosexual and homosexual people (his analysis did not address bisexuality), should not be viewed with additional scrutiny, as are laws that distinguish based on sex or race. The analysis, made as part of challenges claiming a violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantees, asks whether the group claiming discrimination under the law has experienced a history of discrimination and continues to face levels of political powerlessness

.
Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
States can put into place any law they deem necessary. However, if that law (or state constitutional amendment) is found to be contrary to the U.S. Constitution, then those laws or state amendments are declared as "Unconstitutional". As in Prop 8 in California.
True, and different judges can interpret the Constitution differently, as we have seen with this issue.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

20 Users are viewing the Hemet Forum right now

Search the Hemet Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 40 min frozen c 7,852
what keeps hemet from going bankrupt? (Sep '12) 1 hr Chris 27
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 4 hr rain or snow to slow 15,928
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 4 hr tail pipe 4,898
Rancho Cordova hires city manager 10 hr saays who 4
Review: VIP Autos (Dec '13) Wed Guess who 2
Hemet wife beaters Wed bigdave 1
•••

Excessive Heat Warning for Riverside County was issued at July 31 at 9:26AM PDT

•••
•••

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 ]
•••