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 (Page 7,939)

Showing posts 158,761 - 158,780 of200,315
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181882
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
But we aren't a democracy. We're a democratically representative republic.
I know. When did I say we were a democracy jackass?
Edgar

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181883
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You should look up the definition of CHANGE. You just said nothing changing but.... which means it changed.
And I am not that quick at calling people idiots, I have been here quite some time as have the others, I guess the fact that you just arrived to the party has confused you.
BTW, none of the items I mentioned that require changes in the law are "rights".
I didn't say "nothing changing". I said the laws themselves didn't change, it was just an expansion of who they applied to.

This is my RE-arrival to the party, bro. I was commenting on this last May. I found those pages of comments again just a couple minutes ago. You're on them. You've been here forever, or so it seems.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181884
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
Liveliness transcends.
Yes indeed.
Edgar

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181885
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 says marriage is a man and a woman ONLY. Not 2 men and a woman. Not 2 men, not 2 women. It EFFECTIVELY and EQUALLY bans polygamy as well as SSM.
Look Jerky. The bottom line is I support marriage equality and you do not.
Depends on what you define as marriage equality. If "marriage equality" to you includes poly marriage, then it's your cause to fight for. I don't advocate it, but I don't intend to stop you. I'm not an anti-change person.

Look, I'm trying to be nicer to you here. I'm trying to be civil now. You don't have to call me "Jerky".
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181886
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
Well crap, I almost want to apologize for being heavy on you now.
I mean, this is a debate forum, but my god...woah. I was not aware of this, man.
It should make no difference to you, I'm FINE! Enjoying my life maybe even a bit more than I did before. And I have always enjoyed it. It's another challenge. I'm good at challenges.

Don't want or need any sympathy. Fire away, I can't walk but I still have my wits about me. And a sense of humor.

As far as the war, glad I went, glad I came back after two tours. I went there a boy and came back a man with goals. I used the GI bill to earn a masters in geology, and spent 30 years as a research geologist.

And I got lots of HOT SEX with the little brown ladies "take two, they're small"! In between the hard times. And GOOD DRUGS and cheap alcohol! No taxes!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181887
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
People should get equal rights, even when that's not popular with the knuckle dragging mob. People shouldn't stop going after equal rights because they lose one battle.
Marriage is a right.(Loving v VA)
Poor little Rose, all these years and she still hasn't figured out that it was Skinner v Oklahoma that is the source of marriage as a "right".
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181888
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on what you define as marriage equality. If "marriage equality" to you includes poly marriage, then it's your cause to fight for. I don't advocate it, but I don't intend to stop you. I'm not an anti-change person.
Look, I'm trying to be nicer to you here. I'm trying to be civil now. You don't have to call me "Jerky".
My fighting days are over. Now I just want to sit and discuss true marriage equality. For same sex and poly marriages. They are both marriage and they both deserve the same respect and consideration.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181889
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say "nothing changing". I said the laws themselves didn't change, it was just an expansion of who they applied to.
This is my RE-arrival to the party, bro. I was commenting on this last May. I found those pages of comments again just a couple minutes ago. You're on them. You've been here forever, or so it seems.
So when something changes nothing changes?

You really need help.

“I won't be your hero.”

Since: Jul 12

Vacaville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181890
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
People should get equal rights, even when that's not popular with the knuckle dragging mob. People shouldn't stop going after equal rights because they lose one battle.
Marriage is a right.(Loving v VA)
We already have equal rights in the Constitution now, it's just a matter of the people enforcing it. There are hateful bigots that prevent that happening, I find it ridiculous that we have to create laws to ensure what is already there rather than idiots being marginalized as they should be rather than gays.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181891
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, but you wouldn't recognized an argument if it smacked you in the head so it is no wonder that missed it.
LOL. Is stupidity on your level physically painful? I hope so!
You can't come up with a single argument against gay marriage. All you do is attack people. Prove me wrong, come up with an argument against gay marriage. Doesn't even have to be a good one. You can say god is against it, or gay couples can't reproduce. You won't come up with one. You'll just call names.
I have one for gay marriage, only one is needed:
Equal rights.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181892
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor little Rose, all these years and she still hasn't figured out that it was Skinner v Oklahoma that is the source of marriage as a "right".
Stupid, I wasn't saying anything about source. I just put Loving v VA in quotes because it does state that marriage is a right.
And again, you can't come up with an argument against gay marriage, you just call names. Must suck to high heaven to be you!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181893
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Ooops, not quotes, parentheses.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181894
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Is stupidity on my level physically painful?
I don't know, why don't you tell us?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181895
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, I wasn't saying anything about source. I just put Loving v VA in quotes because it does state that marriage is a right.
It sure does, but unlike you when it does so it cites the original source- Skinner v Oklahoma. Something that you like to ignore as it ties marriage and procreation as rights into a nice little bundle.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181896
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

And again, you can't come up with an argument against gay marriage.
Why would I you moron, I never said there was one, in fact I have never said a single time in this forum that same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

What I have argued, is that the federal judiciary has no business sticking their nose in it. There is no Constitutional right to marriage, and marriage laws fall under the purview of the STATE. At least that is what the court said when they tossed portions of DOMA, or don't you like that decision anymore?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181897
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know, why don't you tell us?
See, you never come up with an argument.
LOLSER!
already

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181898
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

get over it

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181899
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I you moron, I never said there was one, in fact I have never said a single time in this forum that same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.
Then you aren't very good at communicating.
akaidiot wrote:
What I have argued, is that the federal judiciary has no business sticking their nose in it. There is no Constitutional right to marriage, and marriage laws fall under the purview of the STATE. At least that is what the court said when they tossed portions of DOMA, or don't you like that decision anymore?
LOL. Dummy, the 14th Amendment says STATES can't deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That would include marriage laws.(Loving v VA) Must suck to be an idiot like you are.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181900
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

For all my detractors-

http://www.rleeermey.com/sounds/pukes.wav

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181901
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you aren't very good at communicating.
My communication skills aren't the problem, you comprehension skills are.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
LOL. Dummy, the 14th Amendment says STATES can't deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That would include marriage laws.(Loving v VA) Must suck to be an idiot like you are.
LOL. Dummy, everyone is treated equally- no one is allowed to marry a person of the same sex and everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

We have been through this before Rose, even the court told you that you are an idiot:

"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced.[...]
The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the [*12]Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.

In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id.[emphasis added])...Plaintiffs cite Loving for the proposition that a statute can discriminate even if it treats both classes identically. This misconstrues the Loving analysis because the antimiscegenation statute did not treat blacks and whites identically—it restricted who whites could marry (but did not restrict intermarriage between non-whites) for the purpose of promoting white supremacy. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was the quintessential example of invidious racial discrimination as it was intended to advantage one race and disadvantage all others, which is why the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny and struck it down as violating the core interest of the Equal Protection Clause.

In contrast, neither men nor women are disproportionately disadvantaged or burdened by the fact that New York's Domestic Relations Law allows only opposite-sex couples to marry—both genders are treated precisely the same way." Hernandez v Robles

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 158,761 - 158,780 of200,315
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Monterey News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••