Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,795

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.

Read more
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189419 Apr 19, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I am well aware of the arguments. I have read the brief's cover to cover as well as the Walker and 9th Circuit decisions.
How many pages have you read?
Here, I will even give you a link to one so you can start catching up.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131248871/Perry-Pro...
IDIOT!
Interesting reading, I've just started it. Thank you, at least, from me.
:-D
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189420 Apr 19, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"If wishes were fished we would all..." WTF? Get serious....
Too funny! Big D attempts eloquence and depth. Fails. Looks stupid.

Today he told me I don't compress him. WTF?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189421 Apr 19, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting reading, I've just started it. Thank you, at least, from me.
:-D
Big D don't need to read no stinking arguments or decisions. He already knows everything and we don't.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189422 Apr 19, 2013
Boy I gotta admit that jackass Big D gets on my last nerve!

What a jackass!
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189423 Apr 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
it is because you say so?
apparantly, no one else does. at least not those that have filed law suits to allow same sex marriage.
You have that backwards, allow me to help, by cut-n-paste. "you say so" "because" "it is". There, that makes sense, now...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189424 Apr 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
What he needs to do is bring forward the legally married poly group that was harmed by Prop 8
Then he would have a case, that they were affected by it
Of course, there isnt any
And, you think to be clever, with that? Let's also bring forth the SSSB abortion statistics, shall we?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189425 Apr 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Try again to what? To tell an idiot that polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage?
I did that 50 times. The idiot didn't listen 50 times. He doesn't get it. He's stupid.
Oh! You're that idiot. Woops.
Please keep track of your idiots. Thank you.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189426 Apr 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
in your opinion. not so much, apparantly by the other posters in this thread.
aren't you the one that posted earlier today about if 2 or 3 of your friends told you something about yourself, then it's probably true and you need to think about what you're doing?
pal, we're way over the "2 or 3" number in this regards.....
Perhaps, but, you don't count. You're all idiots.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189427 Apr 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a poor little moron that doesn’t even understand the arguments being presented in court.
No one really expects prop 8 to be overturned in such a way as to affect other states, there are those that hope for that but the chances are incredibly slim.
This is a California only ( for now ) issue
It is a fact that there are 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California right now.
You honestly don’t think the lawyers are smart enough to bring up the equal rights issues that some same sex marriage couples are being treated unequal to other same sex couples?
Of course they are, the lawyers are a whole lot smarter than you are.
It doesn’t need to extend to the greater question, that is already answered, there are 18,000 legally married couples in California right now, not an opinion, a fact.
The question is why are other same sex couples not afforded the same equal rights.:)
If you didn’t know before you might as well know now... that is why Prop 8 is going down.
OK, wise guy. All those slave owners were legally allowed to own slaves, why am I being discriminated against? Where's my equality with all those guys? If it was right then, why not repeat it now?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189428 Apr 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
i am wondering, though. if prop 8 falls, even just in CA, then what about the laws in other states banning same sex marriage? wouldn't that open the door to other lawsuits within those states? and if doma falls (as expected), then that would affect in some measure those laws as well.
i think, just my opinion here, that with both prop 8 and doma falling, then it's just a matter of time before all the other states' laws are lost causes as well. it may take time, but, with some patience and some money, all things are possible.
what do you think?
Not! You moron. Each state is allowed to make its own laws. No state is required to follow another states example.
Awkward.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189430 Apr 19, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Please keep track of your idiots. Thank you.
Sorry. There are so many. But Big D is their leader. That dope gets on my last nerve.

He acts like someone died and put him in charge.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189431 Apr 19, 2013
UrObsessedWithGayMarriage wrote:
U losers do realize that whoever stops responding is the more mature person right? U all need to get a life...especially if you're not even gay, why r u so obsessed w gay marriage....YOU'RE ALL GAY IF U ASK ME. Have fun OBSESSING over gay marriage
#Obsessed
#Obsessing
#Obsession
#GayMarriage
#LosersHangout
Told you you'd be back. Why do you want to interfere with a perfectly good hate-fest?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189432 Apr 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Atta boy Frankie, 11 hours of posting non stop stupidity. You need to get a life.
Like yours? Hell no! No thanks. Got my own and I like it. Glad that bothers you "sugar nipples".

Remember when you used to call me sugar nipples Jizzy? What happened?
Figured out it was stupid?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189433 Apr 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Atta boy Frankie, 11 hours of posting non stop stupidity. You need to get a life.
Jizzy stops by and with an air of superiority, adds his stupidity.

You can't make this stuff up! I love this thread.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189434 Apr 19, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey giblets for brains, is this the only topix thread? Nope, there are numerous ones. I suspect you have seen them and offered your limited wisdom in a few. You probably masturbate furiously waiting for someone to reply to your drivel. Just be sure you clean up afterwards. You wouldn't want your mommy slipping in your spooge when she brings your milk & cookies down to the basement.
BTW, I'm glad you finally got the courage to admit that you're gay.
ROFLMAO!!! Look at you, now. Street fighting it, like some of us others...
:-D You go, buddy!

...Loving it.....LOL
WOW

Evansville, IN

#189435 Apr 19, 2013
GAYS SICK PERIOD!I DONT THINK THAT JUDGE KNOWS WHAT HE HAS DONE AGAINST MARRIAGE.
guest

Lampasas, TX

#189437 Apr 19, 2013
Fhudcjji cvpfv
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189438 Apr 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
This time, stupid, take notes.
What you are saying is like saying everybody had the right to marry someone of the same race before Loving v VA. The problem was the "same race" is different for people of different races, so there was an equal rights issue.
And the "opposite sex" is different for people of different genders, so we have an equal right issue.
Listen up,$hyte-for-br@ins. Loving V Virginia was not a gender-based argument. Never was, never will be. Got it? Here, look...."Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...

Does it mention gender? NO!!!

"Bloomberg Law

Citation. 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 1967 U.S. 1082.

Brief Fact Summary. The state of Virginia enacted laws making it a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or the reverse. The constitutionality of the statutes was called into question.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Restricting the freedom to marry solely on the basis of race violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
Content
Facts. The state of Virginia enacted laws making it a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or a black person to intermarry with a white person. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the statutes served the legitimate state purpose of preserving the “racial integrity” of its citizens. The State argued that because its miscegenation statutes punished both white and black participants in an interracial marriage equally, they cannot be said to constitute invidious discrimination based on race and, therefore, the statutes commanded mere rational basis review.

Issue. Was rational basis the proper standard of review by which to evaluate the constitutionality of the statutes?
Were the Virginia miscegenation statutes constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause?"

Does it mention gender? NO!!!

From: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constituti...

"Bishop’s authoritative 1852 treatise on the law of marriage explained that “it has always... been deemed requisite to the entire validity of every marriage ... that the parties should be of different sex,” and that “[m]arriage between two persons of one sex could have no validity.” Pet.Br.7. And Davis, writing in 1985, said that “true marriage”is,
inter alia
, a “heterosexual relationship in which reproduction and child care are assumed.” CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE
1, 6-7. But it is certainly true that most historical authorities did not address the idea of marriage between persons of the same sex. There can be no doubt, however, that if they had, they would have said the same thing. After all, they were discussing “marriage,” a gendered term whose meaning was unambiguous and known to all. It meant, as Black-stone said, the relationship between “husband and wife,” Pet.Br.33, also gendered terms whose meanings were unambiguous and known to all. The idea of a“same-sex marriage” was, literally, contradictio interminis to these authorities, and they would have thought it no more necessary to say that such a marriage is not possible than to say that a female husband or male wife is not possible."

From: http://www.scribd.com/doc/131248871/Perry-Pro...

Thanks to AKPilot, for the link to that...
So....Um....Chongo, Loving V Virginia does not cover you, here..
:-D
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189439 Apr 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Does "anal retentive" have a hyphen?
No, it has an underscore, right there, between "Rose" and NoHo"
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189440 Apr 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Monster, the Constitution says all persons should get equal protection.
Speaking of impostor, what are you?
And you have both sets of sex genes, right? So, if our right to marry depends on our sex genes, should you be allowed to marry?
Protection is not legal recognition of imposter relationships. Little detail.
If you could think, we'd be amused, a little bit more.

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.

Brentwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Carlton Gebbia implies Kyle Richards doesn't se... (Mar '14) Fri Frank Lee 3
I want to move onto skid row.... Mar 27 rassean420 1
venice bulldogs, blues or whites, pee wee footb... (Jul '07) Mar 19 David Asfall 10
News Venice Shooting: Adam Pacheco, 31. (Oct '08) Mar 19 whynot1645 22
News People confirms Bruce Jenner 'transitioning int... Mar 17 Comrade deBlowzio 32
News Richie Sambora & Nikki Lund In Dispute, Nikki L... Mar 9 BJ Fan 5
News Gwyneth Paltrow hosts star-studded fundraiser... Nov '14 star writer 3

Beach Hazards Statement for Los Angeles County was issued at March 30 at 8:57AM PDT

Los Angeles Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Brentwood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]