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
149,461 - 149,480 of 200,344 Comments Last updated 19 min ago

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170776
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's entertainment for you......then you really need another form of entertainment......because truly after 4 years, it's just pathetic!!!
She has a right to post her opinions and if ya don't agree with them......and ya don't, then you have the right to counter them......but to continue to make the same comments over and over and over again, is rather redundant and boring......I think you are better than that and if I am wrong......well, then it wouldn't be the first time!!!
Sorry it bores you.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170778
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State.
SCOTUS has NEVER used the words, marriage is defined as a "Union between 1 man and 1 woman"........now, it may be true that they intend it to mean that, but they have NEVER specifically used those words or that language!!!

Actually DOMA has several sections and at the moment, only Section 3 is the one being challenged, but that does not mean that SCOTUS could not include Section 2 as well or wipe out DOMA all together.....but that is just speculation on my part......but Section 3 will be at the heart of their ruling!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170779
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry it bores you.
No, you're not......so, try not to placate me!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170781
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has NEVER used the words, marriage is defined as a "Union between 1 man and 1 woman"........now, it may be true that they intend it to mean that, but they have NEVER specifically used those words or that language!!!
Please, name one time the SCOTUS have ever ruled anything other than the union of one man and one woman to be a marriage?
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually DOMA has several sections and at the moment, only Section 3 is the one being challenged, but that does not mean that SCOTUS could not include Section 2 as well or wipe out DOMA all together.....but that is just speculation on my part......but Section 3 will be at the heart of their ruling!!!
In order for the SCOTUS to toss Section 2 of DOMA they would have to rule the 10th Amendment to be Unconstitutional. Even with as radical as the court currently is, I hardly see them taking that leap.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170782
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're not......so, try not to placate me!!!
Are you a mind reader now?
what

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170784
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

i only poot.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170785
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Another one who just has to hurdle insults towards Rose because obviously she has gotten under your skin........why don't you simply ignore her if ya don't like her comments? or maybe that's just it......you need to insult her in order to make yourself feel better.......either way your tactics only make you look small.....and I don't believe you are!!!!
Judging by her size, there is no way for her to get 'under' anyone's skin. And 'over' likely would be deadly...

:-)

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170786
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, name one time the SCOTUS have ever ruled anything other than the union of one man and one woman to be a marriage?
<quoted text>
In order for the SCOTUS to toss Section 2 of DOMA they would have to rule the 10th Amendment to be Unconstitutional. Even with as radical as the court currently is, I hardly see them taking that leap.
Show me any case that they specifically mentioned gender of the couple having the fundamental right to marrying......I mean it is more than likely implied or was the intent.....but what case out of the 14 that involved marriage as a fundamental right made specific mention of "1 man and 1 woman" with regards to the right to marry?

I didn't say SCOTUS WOULD toss Section 2 of DOMA.....I said the Justices COULD......I know your reading comprehension skills are better than that!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170788
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Another one who just has to hurdle insults towards Rose because obviously she has gotten under your skin........why don't you simply ignore her if ya don't like her comments? or maybe that's just it......you need to insult her in order to make yourself feel better.......either way your tactics only make you look small.....and I don't believe you are!!!!
Or Rose_NoHo could ignore him. Or I could ignore you. But this is a forum, wouldn't work good if posters ignored each other now would it toots?

What a dope!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170789
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no debating with single-cell brainless idiots like yourself who have nothing to being to the discussion except insults towards a poster who has obviously kicked your azz on more than one occasion......lol!!!
Danth's Law.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170790
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Touche wrote:
<quoted text>
STILL no life???
Might want to shift from being a clueless caustic irritant into a man someday.
FYI.
Just laying out facts.

In case you missed it loser it was a news story about just that.

BTW....how many posts does your sorry ass place in here DAILY day and night, month after month?- I wouldn't be talking about having a life friend...LOL!!!

Let gays marry. It harms you not and they are American citizens.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170791
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State.
This all could easily change.

Remember Einstein....once women could not vote. Injustices against an American's liberties will be looked over.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170792
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State.
You are in for one sad day coming up pretty quick.

On Prop 8 there is really only 2 likely outcomes

First most likely, the narrow definition that will uphold the California courts in the specific case against Prop 8, which will allow Gays to marry again legally in California

The second slightly less likely is the broad definition that will overturn such legislations across all 50 states, which will not mandate gay marriage, but will overturn the prohibition of further legislation allowing them to, and the dominoes will roll from there.

Upholding Prop 8 isnít really even in the cards, the state doesnít support it, if it was reintroduced it would fail in a landslide, and there is question over the backers legal right to even defend it.
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170793
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Danth's Law.
GEEEEZUS.......LOL!!!!

Did I get under your skin or WHAT??!!!

LOL!!!!!!
Dan C

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170794
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Your wife did.
Damn skippy.

I'm no Brad Pitt.

BTW....I never heard you mention so much as a girlfriend let alnoe a wife so I find it hard to give you much credence in discussing anything about relationships let alone your lost stance on gay marriage.

LOL!!!

What a putz your momma raised.
Smoothed

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170795
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

No problems here just another issue that will work it's self out.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170796
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Smoothed wrote:
No problems here just another issue that will work it's self out.
It will work itself out, I have been telling Gay folks for years that it is only a matter of time. In the scheme of things this one is rolling a whole lot faster than similar issues in the past.

Amazingly fast, which is why I suppose that some folks are so scared of it.

It doesnít hurt anyone, it certainly didnít hurt my marriage for gays to be able to marry.
Dogsoldier

Compton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170797
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Don't waste your time voting. It's the judges who decide not the people.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170798
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn skippy.
I'm no Brad Pitt.
BTW....I never heard you mention so much as a girlfriend let alnoe a wife so I find it hard to give you much credence in discussing anything about relationships let alone your lost stance on gay marriage.
LOL!!!
What a putz your momma raised.
My mom didn't raise you.

As far as the rest of your post. It's stupid too.

WOOHOO! Dan. What a jackass!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170799
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
GEEEEZUS.......LOL!!!!
Did I get under your skin or WHAT??!!!
LOL!!!!!!
No.

You're just fun!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

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.

7 Users are viewing the Modesto Forum right now

Search the Modesto Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Walmart in Oakdale? (Aug '07) 6 hr chris j 11
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 8 hr snodder 2,252
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sun Twilight sun 7,848
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sun Facts facts 15,927
Amazon worker piloted drone around Space Needle Sat wichita-rick 8
No ticket for Shrek over loud musical, chief says Sat shantell 2
Woman: Backyard near turnpike is not a rest stop Jul 25 The Mediator 11
•••
•••
•••
•••

Modesto Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Modesto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Modesto News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••