Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,189

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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#199030 Jun 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the founders ever believed that the Constitution would be used for freeing slaves or integration?
Umm, yeah. That's why they didn't let the south flood the House by counting slaves as "whole" people.

Anyone who has actually taken the time to study our history knows that. They also know that many of the founders were ready and willing to take on the issue of slavery at the drafting, but they felt it would result and losing everything, thus they wrote the 3/5th clause knowing by attrition the practice of slavery would bring about its own demise.

But I guess people like you whom get their historical education from comedy central don't understand that.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the founders had any concept of computers, subatomic particles, digital downloads, or any other technology that couldn't have been foreseen at the time of the signing?
What does this have to do with the price of rice in china?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the founders had any notion that the Constitution would be used to create "corporate personhood"?
Since Corporations are nothing more that a conglomeration of citizens, I don't think they would have much trouble with the concept.

Anyhow, what difference does it really make? Most corporations hedge their bets when making campaign donations anyhow, so each party comes out about even.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution was a starting point. The Supreme Court uses it to look at all manner of situations that the founders could never have fathomed.
No you idiot. The Constitution was the end-point. It is what it is, and only changes through the Amendment process, not at the whims of the SCOTUS.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
They make decisions based on how it has been applied in the past.
So it doesn't matter if the founders ever conceived of the Constitution being used to legalize same-sex marriage.
The Constitution doesn't address the issue you marriage. The founders weren't interested in an all powerful, know and control everything federal government.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
As to the rest of what you said... Meh... Get over it. You guys lost the case. Maybe next time...
Actually we all lost. The court has announced to the American citizen that they "lack standing" to address the government for a redress of grievances as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

But you are so near sighted, you can't see beyond- YAY, I can marry a dude..
Smeared

Monrovia, CA

#199033 Jun 29, 2013
You should have been stuccoed over years ago.
Stupps

Monrovia, CA

#199038 Jun 29, 2013
The US forest has a bunch of hot-shots running around in US forest service uniforms and vehicles.

These Pin-Heads are make issue far worse then the need to be.

These US forest jerks haven't even allowed the Starch to dry in their brand new uniforms.

Complaints about the conduct of U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers the Sheriff department to suspend their authority to enforce state laws in the county effective July 2013.

He said the sheriff had received multiple complaints from citizens regarding the actions of U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers.

These Pin-Heads have to cross county highways and property before they can access Federal property so they are at the mercy of the sheriffs department until then.
laughing man

UK

#199039 Jun 29, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
If anyone has pointed out Obammy's race, it's you. Racist, eh? Pity......you were doing so well, with little you got..
It called you "a racist piece of shit" simply for having a diverse point of view?

They truly are deeply and dangerously mentally disturbed, and should be locked away.
laughing man

UK

#199040 Jun 29, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO! You've seen all that there is..
That's about the brightest yellow I've ever seen on any monitor. And how about those glasses? It has a future as a unionized publik skewl teechur.
Straps

Monrovia, CA

#199042 Jun 29, 2013
Has anyone noticed how much the Mayor of Glendora, California resembles Bernie" Madoff ?

Take a look sometime, they almost caught Joseph Santoro at college screw up in Whittier , Californian
Straps

Monrovia, CA

#199046 Jun 29, 2013
Lets get to THE bottom of this, some pin-head Mormons want to stop the world while they get off?

There always getting off on their multi wives anyway, what do they care anyway?

Lawyers with the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom claim in a petition that 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acted too early and unfairly when it let same-sex marriage resume in California.

They can always move back to Mexico, if they want?
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#199049 Jun 29, 2013
What an insult to the two Homos, by letting the out going scandalous little homo mayor Antonio V. who can't speak and who cheated on his wife and all the other women he hustled give the cerimony at L.A. city hall. What a joke, those two better get re-married because that loser is a fake. But then again this whole ordeal is a joke. How appropriate Camela and the two lezbos and Antonio and the two finochs lol what a family. I wouldn't doubt that slime bag tried hookingup with Camela and watch the two new SS couples get down tonight !!!
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#199053 Jun 29, 2013
And everyone stop using the "N" word.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#199057 Jun 29, 2013
This thread is no longer needed.

The SCotUS has decided the issue.

Marriage Equality is back in California.
laughing man

UK

#199058 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
This thread is no longer needed.
The SCotUS has decided the issue.
Marriage Equality is back in California.
More like the SCRotus, Brucie.

Tell your friends, it was 5 to 4.
laughing man

UK

#199059 Jun 29, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
This inconvenient little truth is NEVER addressed, is it? How far into the jungle would we have gotten, without the co-operation of the natives?
It astounds me how they remain on the Plantation and blame Whitey Righty for all their ills.

If you took off their shackles and pointed them to the open gate, they'd cut your throat.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199061 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
SHUDDUP troll. You deserve no respect or response. Don't try to wheedle any out of me. I'll respond to you if and when it amuses me.
That's what I thought. You're not here to have a rational discussion. You're here to troll. Notice how angry you are when I imitate you trolling. LOL

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199062 Jun 29, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, yeah. That's why they didn't let the south flood the House by counting slaves as "whole" people.
Anyone who has actually taken the time to study our history knows that. They also know that many of the founders were ready and willing to take on the issue of slavery at the drafting, but they felt it would result and losing everything, thus they wrote the 3/5th clause knowing by attrition the practice of slavery would bring about its own demise.
But I guess people like you whom get their historical education from comedy central don't understand that.
<quoted text>
What does this have to do with the price of rice in china?
<quoted text>
Since Corporations are nothing more that a conglomeration of citizens, I don't think they would have much trouble with the concept.
Anyhow, what difference does it really make? Most corporations hedge their bets when making campaign donations anyhow, so each party comes out about even.
<quoted text>
No you idiot. The Constitution was the end-point. It is what it is, and only changes through the Amendment process, not at the whims of the SCOTUS.
<quoted text>
The Constitution doesn't address the issue you marriage. The founders weren't interested in an all powerful, know and control everything federal government.
<quoted text>
Actually we all lost. The court has announced to the American citizen that they "lack standing" to address the government for a redress of grievances as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
But you are so near sighted, you can't see beyond- YAY, I can marry a dude..
So you think they were wrong to base their decision in large on the 5th Amendment?

Please tell us all how they got it wrong.

And YAY! I can marry a dude! That's all we wanted and that's what we got.

We would have been happier if they had overturned DOMA altogether. That didn't happen. However, they have set a standard that's going to be awfully hard for states with DOMA written into their constitutions to maintain it.

Same-sex couples will go to apply for a marriage license. They will be denied. These couples will appeal any state's decision to try to enforce DOMA. They will go before a federal court. That's how states will be overturned--one by one.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199063 Jun 29, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I thought. You're not here to have a rational discussion. You're here to troll. Notice how angry you are when I imitate you trolling. LOL
Try to relax fruitcake.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199066 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to relax fruitcake.
I am very relaxed. And your trolling continues. Call me a derogatory name. Blah blah blah. Squawk!

I thought you were here to have a discussion about polygamy? I look forward to hearing your conversation points. Or perhaps you saying you wanted to discuss polygamy was just a troll bait tactic, and you really have no conversation points?
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199067 Jun 29, 2013
Homer wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a real live AssTroll?
I don't know what a "real live AssTroll" is, so I cannot answer that question. Sorry dude. Hope you're having a wonderful weekend. Peace.

“Religion kills”

Since: Jun 13

Down Under

#199068 Jun 30, 2013
Sparkle_is_stripper wrote:
<quoted text>oh look the Marlboro man is back
The real Rock Hudson was MUCH better looking.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199069 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote: I understand that mating behavior and procreation are confusing realities for homosexuals, in that mating behavior is meaningless and procreation is impossible for ss couples. However, for 98% of the population it is not. But to be straightforward, for you to call anal sex natural, but not procreation, really exposes the depth your denial delusions! Kind of scary VV.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Still waiting for your source where you can prove that 98% of couples have intercourse for procreation. Last time you said the figure was 96%.
2.) If every heterosexual couple who is currently married ONLY had sex for procreative purposes, then the population of the planet wouldn't be 7 billion, it would be 70 billion.
3.) Procreation isn't confusing for homosexuals. We've all been taught the birds and the bees. It's hardly rocket science. I always adore it when you act as though procreation was a magical, mysterious process that only straight people can fathom.
4.) More ass fascination... I'm hardly surprised.
5.) According to a 2006 survey completed by the Centers for Disease Controlís National Survey of Family Growth showed that "38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex." BOTTOM line, you ASSume that only gays engage in ANAL sex. Obviously, straight people do too. My guess is that you've looked at you wife's ASS a few times over the years and thought about taking a ride. Those who live in glASS houses should throw stones.(I capitalized those words that I thought might give you the most enjoyment).
Man... I mean Queen, that must have took some work to totally avoid the substance and gay twirl my comments!!!

I simply said that MOST (98%) of the population understand mating behavior and procreation. You clearly do not.

I then pondered how you can call anal sex natural, but deny that procreation isn't natural. You didn't explain.

I then noted that the degree of your denial is troubling. I repeat that.

Get help VV.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199070 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah... You seem to be getting the point. Not ever instance of sexual intercourse results in babies. Gay people do it all the time.
Here is more of your gay confusion.

Heterosexual couples have to use protection to avoid procreation.

Homosexuals never have to worry about procreation!

They have to use protection to have sex!!!

Just another major distinction between ss couples and marriage.

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) 1 hr JOEL 70,100
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 ]