Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185095 Mar 28, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
there is plenty to learn from the past...
like the fact that we dont want to go back there, like the republicans want to.
Oh I agree, that is what our founders did, they looked around them, and into history, and made sure what they set up did not repeat those terrible mistakes.

and they made the document changeable, a living document so future generations could do the same
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185096 Mar 28, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>So does CA.
but wait??

doesnt that conflict with your normal line about california being a compleat mess? because the democrats are in charge?

the fact is?? if the legislature did their job??

we wouldnt have even had people vs kelly.

that court decision basically refered to the patients doctor, as to how much medicine can be grown by each patient.

which is what the legislature should have done in the first place.... that is how doctors handle aLL other types of medicine.

but hey, im not complaining, some states still throw you in jail if they catch you gardening your own medicine.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185097 Mar 28, 2013
There is a BIG issue with the "standing" arguments in court.

If the Supremes go that way, it is admittedly the easy way, decide no on has standing to defend prop 8 and down it goes, same with DOMA, decide that BLAG does not have standing and down it goes.

But that sets up one strange and powerful precedent.

That means any Governor, in any state can overturn any law he wants to, by having someone challenge it, and then refuse to defend it. Donít get me wrong.

I still think they may rule on standing... but if they do... they are opening a whole new can of worms.

Donít get me wrong, I think but the republican and democratic governors of California did the right thing refusing to defend it.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#185098 Mar 28, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to, the court has already explained it. Again if you people would actually do some actual research instead of simply taking everything you read on a liberal blog and repeating it you might actually learn something.
"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."..."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)óa 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]).[FN2] Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the{**7 NY3d at 372} values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union,[FN3] it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.[FN4][*13]"- Hernandez v Robles
wrong again. try reading the prop 8 transcripts and the DOMA transcripts as those are the trials we're discussing.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#185099 Mar 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
There is a BIG issue with the "standing" arguments in court.
If the Supremes go that way, it is admittedly the easy way, decide no on has standing to defend prop 8 and down it goes, same with DOMA, decide that BLAG does not have standing and down it goes.
But that sets up one strange and powerful precedent.
That means any Governor, in any state can overturn any law he wants to, by having someone challenge it, and then refuse to defend it. Donít get me wrong.
I still think they may rule on standing... but if they do... they are opening a whole new can of worms.
Donít get me wrong, I think but the republican and democratic governors of California did the right thing refusing to defend it.
i agree. that is a worrisome can of worms. no way of knowing the long term effects of just ruling on the standing validity. any law is then suspect - and i think at least one of the justices pondered upon that as well.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185100 Mar 28, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with "should"- it is a CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.
The States have been all but castrated thanks to the 16th and 17th Amendment's.
The 16th allowed the Federal Government to directly tax the income of the populous. As such, now instead of the State being able to fund it's own programs thus retaining control, the Fed taxes at such a rate little is left for the State to take. Then the Fed dangles the carrot- do as we say or you won't get your citizens money back from us to run all those programs and projects.
This goes right in line with the 17th Amendment which basically created a second House of Representatives, thus removing the State's voice in the Federal government.
We could fix a lot of our issues by sending those two Amendments the way of prohibition.
the 17th amendment allows for local elections??

you are against local elections??

REALLY??

I guess it is not that surprising, as the tea partiers are trying to do away with local elections in michigan.

they have already succeeded in cutting half the black population OFF from their former local representation.

now they have "emergency managers", installed in those cities(inc now detroit)

they arnt doing it quit like hitler did in in 38??

but almost

it IS targeting black communities.

Michigan is one of those states in the rust belt that used to vote republican, but now votes democratic for president.

it is one of the states YOUR party must retake if it EVER hopes to win the whitehouse again.

THIS is NOT a GOOD way to reach out to minority voters to show them that they embody your republican values....

JUst the opposite.

you guys hope to wIN national elections while the members of your state coalitions are passing laws like THAT???

the voters actually repealed the emergency manager law...

.....but then the state legislature(because they dont like the 17th amendment) nullified that mandate by passing another emrgency manager law, THIS time adding that it COULDNT be repealed by popular demand.....what kind of government does things like that??
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185101 Mar 28, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong again. try reading the prop 8 transcripts and the DOMA transcripts as those are the trials we're discussing.
DOMA is a dead issue, as soon as they read the intent that was written for DOMA in 1996, it was going down.

That is animus, practically a written confession .... DOMA is toast

The question is really now only Prop 8
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185102 Mar 28, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
AK, I don't trust the Electoral College, I believe in Popular Vote...Even though the Framers gave it to us, to "..guard against a rash act by the people.."
AKKK doesnt likkk the local elections either...

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185103 Mar 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
WELL THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN NATURE, IT'S VERY COMMON."
Homosexual behavior has been observed in black swans, penguins, sheep, and other animals, he says.
One dude even took his dog back for being gay...Do you ever think how degrading it is to gay people that their lives and loving bonds are being compared with the instinctual shagging of puzzled birds and dogs?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#185104 Mar 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA is a dead issue, as soon as they read the intent that was written for DOMA in 1996, it was going down.
That is animus, practically a written confession .... DOMA is toast
The question is really now only Prop 8
true. i'm just curious about the findings and writings from SCOTUS in regards to DOMA. it could set a precedent.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185105 Mar 28, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
but wait??
doesnt that conflict with your normal line about california being a compleat mess? because the democrats are in charge?
I guess that means CA is not a compleat mess, or did you mean complete? The Democrats here make sure they regulate rabbits and it's Indian casino's. They must be complete.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185106 Mar 28, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
there is plenty to learn from the past...
like the fact that we dont want to go back there, like the republicans want to.
Then why do the D's keep repeating history?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185107 Mar 28, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
true. i'm just curious about the findings and writings from SCOTUS in regards to DOMA. it could set a precedent.
yes.. it shares the precedent that prop 8 does, if they defeat it with standing.

But I doubt they will, animus is obvious, it will be easy for them to just strike it down outright.

I suppose it is also true however that animus can be used in quite a number of states.
Number9

La Puente, CA

#185108 Mar 28, 2013
Just how much to you recycle?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185109 Mar 28, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
true. i'm just curious about the findings and writings from SCOTUS in regards to DOMA. it could set a precedent.
Itís funny, neither of these rulings will have any effect on me, my family, and very few people that I even happen to know

But I am on the edge of my seat watching this, the advance of freedom, justice and equality.

It has been an interesting few days

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185110 Mar 28, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>One dude even took his dog back for being gay...Do you ever think how degrading it is to gay people that their lives and loving bonds are being compared with the instinctual shagging of puzzled birds and dogs?
Yeah... I guess it's kind of like when folks call it "the birds and the bees." Or when Kimare gets on here and tries to convince us that only straight people should marry because of apple trees and walnut trees.

Oh... Wait... That would be degrading to straight people too.

Seriously, I have no problem having homosexuality pointed out in nature. Heterosexuality exists throughout nature. Even monogamy is seen in nature. Do you have a problem with that?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185111 Mar 28, 2013
Number9 wrote:
Just how much to you recycle?
depends on how much it's worth
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185112 Mar 28, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>One dude even took his dog back for being gay...Do you ever think how degrading it is to gay people that their lives and loving bonds are being compared with the instinctual shagging of puzzled birds and dogs?
that is what those in favor of SSM have been screaming everytime someone from the bigoted zone, puts in their two cents, comparing gay marriage to beastiality, or worse...

they have been doing it aLL along!!

where have you been??

or are you just now becoming liberal, because of this issue?
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185113 Mar 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís funny, neither of these rulings will have any effect on me, my family, and very few people that I even happen to know
But I am on the edge of my seat watching this, the advance of freedom, justice and equality.
It has been an interesting few days
same here, but I think everybody's rights are somehow intertwined...

weve seen what apathy can do to the political process...
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185114 Mar 28, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Then why do the D's keep repeating history?
you have to be more specific....

everybody "repeats history" in some way.

BUT in keeping you fools OUTA the whitehouse, we are trying to prevent another situation like iraq....

pre-emptive corporate wars are not in the publics interest.

esp when said oil cartels want the public to pay for it.

"the oil will pay for the invasion"

donald dumsfeld, 2003.

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) 53 min Mandela 70,075
Live Oak stabbing is second in two days (Jun '08) Oct 17 savvylocal 245
International CIT conference comes to Monterey Oct 14 DO Powers 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Oct 8 thazzleb17 2
Pacific Grove Girl Chelsie Hills Law suit. Rea... Oct 3 Siding with Toyota 1
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 23 Shelly 12
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sep '14 fancy 3
Monterey Dating
Find my Match

Monterey Jobs

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 ]