Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,321

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

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#163316 Oct 15, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
so in other words you are only polite to those who share your values??
please clarify that statement.
then write something else!!
Nah....just to hypocritical smartasses such as yourself.

Help?

LOL!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163317 Oct 15, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
But Saddam had, and USED chemical weapons in both his war with Iran and on the Kurds in his own country. Since he REFUSED to provide proof that he no longer had those weapons, he did not give us any choice but to invade.
And Afghanistan was run by the Taliban, who harbored and supported the al Qaida terrorists who attacked us repeatedly. If they did not want to be invaded, they could have handed over bin Ladin and his co-conspirators.
Wow, I think we agree on something.. Maybe the world will end in December.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163318 Oct 15, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, I am very opposed to ANY path for citizenship for illegals, unless they go back home and come in the right way, legally. And if it were not for the current language of the Constitution, I'd gladly support legislation that denied citizenship rights for the children of illegal aliens, ever.(Exception: if they are born here and give the country a minimum of four years military or equivalent service.)
Well, we almost agree on this.

It is not the words of the Constitution that are the problem when it comes to the children of illegals born in this country, it is the misinterpretation of the SCOTUS as to the meaning of those words.

Those who drafted the citizenship clause were very clear as to its meaning, and it did not include "anchor" babies.

Senator Jacob Howard (Aided in drafting the 14th Amendment)

"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Senator Lymann Trumbull (chairman judiciary committee)replies:

"[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Senator Jacob Howard concurs:

" I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

Rep. John Bingham (Considered the father of the 14th Amendment) States:

"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen"

All of this and much more is available at the Library of Congress regarding the Congressional debates on the 14th Amendment. One this is clear, they never intended simply making it to our soil to be born was enough to be granted citizenship.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#163319 Oct 15, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
You need to wear a helmet to cut down on the damage. The name he is using is Lyin Ayn Ryan. The Ayn in that refers to Ayn Rand. The Ryan in it refers to Rmoney's running mate, a man. It is nice to see you continue to blathering on and on about it though.
There is a connection between the two of them, or at least there was before it became politically painful for Ryan. Maybe if you spent a little time with your head out you'd be able to pick up on these little details.
How many times do I need to explain this one to you?
You can tell when he's backed into an intellectual corner that he doesn't have the mental tools to escape. That's when he resorts to his hackey "I'm making you mad on purpose, because I am such a puppetmaster" line. The reality is that we find him frustrating because he is an idiot and the only way he can attempt to cover it up is by doubling-down his idiocy into infinity and then claiming that pretending to be an idiot on purpose is somehow less shameful that just being an idiot. In actuality, it's much more pathetic.

Curious how the simpleton amuses himself, isn't it?
His father never told him he was loved, so he spends his days on the internet, desperately pleading for any kind of attention from his betters.

You remember that kid in school that would eat bugs and garbage, just so people would look at them? This is what happens when they are old enough to afford and internet connection.
Big Dig

United States

#163320 Oct 15, 2012
God made adam and eve, not adam and steve!!(.)(.)
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#163321 Oct 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
It is not the words of the Constitution that are the problem when it comes to the children of illegals born in this country, it is the misinterpretation of the SCOTUS as to the meaning of those words.
If the wording wasn't a problem, how could it possibly be misinterpreted?

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#163322 Oct 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we almost agree on this.
It is not the words of the Constitution that are the problem when it comes to the children of illegals born in this country, it is the misinterpretation of the SCOTUS as to the meaning of those words.
Those who drafted the citizenship clause were very clear as to its meaning, and it did not include "anchor" babies.
Senator Jacob Howard (Aided in drafting the 14th Amendment)
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Senator Lymann Trumbull (chairman judiciary committee)replies:
"[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Senator Jacob Howard concurs:
" I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
Rep. John Bingham (Considered the father of the 14th Amendment) States:
"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen"
All of this and much more is available at the Library of Congress regarding the Congressional debates on the 14th Amendment. One this is clear, they never intended simply making it to our soil to be born was enough to be granted citizenship.
Good analysis.

Since: Oct 12

San Jose, CA

#163323 Oct 15, 2012
Big Dig wrote:
God made adam and eve, not adam and steve!!(.)(.)
Seek a cougar dating attract more and more people because age-gap becomes a trend, we have been connecting many mature cougars and younger male for many years and sign up for free, it takes just 25 seconds to complete the whole information, and we want to let more people to know seekacougar.c*om

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163324 Oct 15, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
If the wording wasn't a problem, how could it possibly be misinterpreted?
It happens all the time.. We call them activist judges.
Connie Clear

Vallejo, CA

#163325 Oct 15, 2012
Big Dig wrote:
God made adam and eve, not adam and steve!!

Were Adam and Eve red, white, yellow, black or brown? Did Adam and Eve have brown eyes, hazel eyes, green eyes, blue eyes? Did Adam and Eve have red hair, brown hair, black hair, blonde hair?

Obviously there is much more diversity in humanity than Adam and Eve exhibited.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#163326 Oct 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
It happens all the time.. We call them activist judges.
Too bad a bunch of lawyers weren't competent enough to compose an airtight legal document, eh?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#163327 Oct 15, 2012
Same sex marriage is gender segregation. I believe in the perfect diversity of marriage one man and one woman; perfect affirmative action. I oppose gender segregation marriage because diversity is the nature of marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163328 Oct 15, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad a bunch of lawyers weren't competent enough to compose an airtight legal document, eh?
I know it's difficult for you, but try an apply some critical thinking skills. For once in your life don't expect to be TOLD what to think.

Read my post which analyzed the Congressional debate on the drafting of the 14th Amendment, an analysis by those whom actually drafted the Amendment. Listen to what they said, then you tell me how the court got it "right" when they created "anchor babies?"

I know this might hurt, so you might want to have some aspirin handy.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#163329 Oct 15, 2012
Judge Walker found against the California taxpayer and voter, for the state and new regulation of marriage.

Same sex marriage is bad for homosexuals. Every gay was born of male/female union.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#163330 Oct 15, 2012
akpilot wrote:
It happens all the time.. We call them activist judges.
Especially when you take into account that the 14th amendment was an answer to the 'activist judges'(ie "judges that I disagree with")Dred Scott Decision. Legal interpretation they didn't agree with was the reason the Amendment exists, and they STILL left the door wide open?

Your quoting of the people involved, whom you happen to agree with is nice, but not the whole picture. Tell us about the people on the other side of the debates you mention.

Either the lawyers you quoted were wholly incompetent at composing legal documents, or the issue wasn't as one sided as you would have us believe. Which is it?
Connie Clear

Vallejo, CA

#163333 Oct 16, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially when you take into account that the 14th amendment was an answer to the 'activist judges'(ie "judges that I disagree with")Dred Scott Decision. Legal interpretation they didn't agree with was the reason the Amendment exists, and they STILL left the door wide open?
Your quoting of the people involved, whom you happen to agree with is nice, but not the whole picture. Tell us about the people on the other side of the debates you mention.
Either the lawyers you quoted were wholly incompetent at composing legal documents, or the issue wasn't as one sided as you would have us believe. Which is it?

Is your Google button broken?

“Think,does it help or hurt?”

Since: Jul 09

" Because logic tells us so "

#163334 Oct 16, 2012
Connie Clear wrote:
<quoted text>
Were Adam and Eve red, white, yellow, black or brown? Did Adam and Eve have brown eyes, hazel eyes, green eyes, blue eyes? Did Adam and Eve have red hair, brown hair, black hair, blonde hair?
Obviously there is much more diversity in humanity than Adam and Eve exhibited.
That might be true except for the fact that Adam and Eve never existed! Just a figment of some old goat herder 2,000 years ago! But I must say there was a lot of incest going on in that fictitious garden between all those kids and brothers and sisters! I guess the sky fairy condoned incest I guess? LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163335 Oct 16, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially when you take into account that the 14th amendment was an answer to the 'activist judges'(ie "judges that I disagree with")Dred Scott Decision. Legal interpretation they didn't agree with was the reason the Amendment exists, and they STILL left the door wide open?
Your quoting of the people involved, whom you happen to agree with is nice, but not the whole picture. Tell us about the people on the other side of the debates you mention.
Either the lawyers you quoted were wholly incompetent at composing legal documents, or the issue wasn't as one sided as you would have us believe. Which is it?
Feel free to quote some people whom feel otherwise and think the 14th Amendment was to create "Anchor Babies"- we will wait.

I could save you the time, because I have read the entire Congressional Debate, and a vast majority of the State ratification debates and simply tell you it isn't there. But I am sure that you already knew that since I am sure the first thing you did was hit google to find something to support your nonsense. Since you couldn't find it, you continue to dance around the topic attempting to sound educated on the subject.

BTW, while Dred Scott was the catalyst, the 14th Amendment was designed to solidify the Civil Rights Act of 1866 into the Constitution and prevent another Congress by simple majority from changing it.

But really, in all your ranting and nonsense, you still haven't present a valid argument for "anchor babies".

Don't worry, we don't expect you to.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#163336 Oct 16, 2012
Tim Shields wrote:
I know, same sex marriage is like giving a drug addict crack, to fix his problem. It's what he thinks he wants, but it is not legal and it is destructive.
Good point.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#163337 Oct 16, 2012
Tim Shields wrote:
<quoted text>If you can't make your own argument, it might be because you donothave one. You gays might find it interesting, that one of your Prop 8 lawyers, David Boies, is working with the GOP's and Ryan so they can get elected and abolish all same sex marriages. Irony of irony.
Hey Doc......you really expect ANYONE who supports the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples to believe this crap?

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Tue JOEL 71,541
Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Jan 26 Woody 1,516
Multiple suspects in custody for Seaside shootings Jan 15 Anonymous 1
Peninsula high school students arrested in 'fig... (Sep '09) Jan 7 trey 108
Other border states shun Arizona's immigration law (May '10) Jan 6 colton case 9,053
Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H... Dec '14 Kristen Scannell ... 2
Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre... Dec '14 Clint 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:53 pm PST