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 7,940)

Showing posts 158,781 - 158,800 of199,073
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181902
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Can you imagine the loser who rates Rose_NoHo's posts "Brilliant"?

Anyone?
Dirty Harry

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181903
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

How are the CopperHeads doing tonight
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181904
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If all other laws against polygamy were repealed except PROP 8, that would be the only thing stopping polygamy from being legal in California, X-box.
D
If the queen had balls she'd be king.

If, if, if..... try dealing with what is.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181906
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.
Polygamy was already illegaly when Prop 8 was passed. Prop 8 banned same sex marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181907
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Polygamy was already illegaly when Prop 8 was passed. Prop 8 banned same sex marriage.
Prop 8 banned any marriage save that of one man and one woman.

I thought you wanted to deal with "what is?"

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181908
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.

While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Edgar

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181910
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
But it isn't your decision what another couple wants to do, is it?
Edgar

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181911
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So when something changes nothing changes?
You really need help.
You think I was saying nothing changes?

You have a vivid imagination.
Edgar

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181912
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
(Also, the fact that you focus so much on aspects of gay sex really makes me wonder...)

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181913
Mar 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; ..
Is it "gay sex" if lots of straight people do it, and most gay people don't? I believe it's called anal sex.

If you want the government to directly intervene and prevent all anal sex, then wouldn't that apply to straight folks as well? What kind of testing and regulation would you require the government to engage in to deny marriage license to any anal sex practitioners? Who would run it?

Who would pay for it?

And most importantly, who else but you would support it?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 158,781 - 158,800 of199,073
|
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

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••