Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,968

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

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#170786 Dec 11, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, name one time the SCOTUS have ever ruled anything other than the union of one man and one woman to be a marriage?
<quoted text>
In order for the SCOTUS to toss Section 2 of DOMA they would have to rule the 10th Amendment to be Unconstitutional. Even with as radical as the court currently is, I hardly see them taking that leap.
Show me any case that they specifically mentioned gender of the couple having the fundamental right to marrying......I mean it is more than likely implied or was the intent.....but what case out of the 14 that involved marriage as a fundamental right made specific mention of "1 man and 1 woman" with regards to the right to marry?

I didn't say SCOTUS WOULD toss Section 2 of DOMA.....I said the Justices COULD......I know your reading comprehension skills are better than that!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170788 Dec 11, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Another one who just has to hurdle insults towards Rose because obviously she has gotten under your skin........why don't you simply ignore her if ya don't like her comments? or maybe that's just it......you need to insult her in order to make yourself feel better.......either way your tactics only make you look small.....and I don't believe you are!!!!
Or Rose_NoHo could ignore him. Or I could ignore you. But this is a forum, wouldn't work good if posters ignored each other now would it toots?

What a dope!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170789 Dec 11, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no debating with single-cell brainless idiots like yourself who have nothing to being to the discussion except insults towards a poster who has obviously kicked your azz on more than one occasion......lol!!!
Danth's Law.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170790 Dec 11, 2012
Touche wrote:
<quoted text>
STILL no life???
Might want to shift from being a clueless caustic irritant into a man someday.
FYI.
Just laying out facts.

In case you missed it loser it was a news story about just that.

BTW....how many posts does your sorry ass place in here DAILY day and night, month after month?- I wouldn't be talking about having a life friend...LOL!!!

Let gays marry. It harms you not and they are American citizens.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170791 Dec 11, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State.
This all could easily change.

Remember Einstein....once women could not vote. Injustices against an American's liberties will be looked over.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#170792 Dec 11, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not "marriage", the issue is the definition of "marriage". In not ONE instance has the SCOTUS ever claimed anything other than the Union of a man and a woman to be a marriage. Could that definition change? Sure, but the question we really should ask ourselves is- do we want a federal court which lacks the authority of the Constitution to define marriage to make that decision?
Remember, they are also going to hear the DOMA case, which specifically was decided based on the premise that the regulation and definition of marriage rested with the State.
You are in for one sad day coming up pretty quick.

On Prop 8 there is really only 2 likely outcomes

First most likely, the narrow definition that will uphold the California courts in the specific case against Prop 8, which will allow Gays to marry again legally in California

The second slightly less likely is the broad definition that will overturn such legislations across all 50 states, which will not mandate gay marriage, but will overturn the prohibition of further legislation allowing them to, and the dominoes will roll from there.

Upholding Prop 8 isnít really even in the cards, the state doesnít support it, if it was reintroduced it would fail in a landslide, and there is question over the backers legal right to even defend it.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170793 Dec 11, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Danth's Law.
GEEEEZUS.......LOL!!!!

Did I get under your skin or WHAT??!!!

LOL!!!!!!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170794 Dec 11, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Your wife did.
Damn skippy.

I'm no Brad Pitt.

BTW....I never heard you mention so much as a girlfriend let alnoe a wife so I find it hard to give you much credence in discussing anything about relationships let alone your lost stance on gay marriage.

LOL!!!

What a putz your momma raised.
Smoothed

Covina, CA

#170795 Dec 11, 2012
No problems here just another issue that will work it's self out.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#170796 Dec 11, 2012
Smoothed wrote:
No problems here just another issue that will work it's self out.
It will work itself out, I have been telling Gay folks for years that it is only a matter of time. In the scheme of things this one is rolling a whole lot faster than similar issues in the past.

Amazingly fast, which is why I suppose that some folks are so scared of it.

It doesnít hurt anyone, it certainly didnít hurt my marriage for gays to be able to marry.
Dogsoldier

Los Angeles, CA

#170797 Dec 11, 2012
Don't waste your time voting. It's the judges who decide not the people.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170798 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn skippy.
I'm no Brad Pitt.
BTW....I never heard you mention so much as a girlfriend let alnoe a wife so I find it hard to give you much credence in discussing anything about relationships let alone your lost stance on gay marriage.
LOL!!!
What a putz your momma raised.
My mom didn't raise you.

As far as the rest of your post. It's stupid too.

WOOHOO! Dan. What a jackass!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170799 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
GEEEEZUS.......LOL!!!!
Did I get under your skin or WHAT??!!!
LOL!!!!!!
No.

You're just fun!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170800 Dec 11, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It will work itself out, I have been telling Gay folks for years that it is only a matter of time. In the scheme of things this one is rolling a whole lot faster than similar issues in the past.
Amazingly fast, which is why I suppose that some folks are so scared of it.
It doesnít hurt anyone, it certainly didnít hurt my marriage for gays to be able to marry.
Nor would poly marriage hurt you.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170801 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Just laying out facts.
In case you missed it loser it was a news story about just that.
BTW....how many posts does your sorry ass place in here DAILY day and night, month after month?- I wouldn't be talking about having a life friend...LOL!!!
Let gays marry. It harms you not and they are American citizens.
Uh-oh. Dan's counting posts again.

So how many posts does it take to make yourself wrong? I don't want to be wrong.

What a jackass!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#170802 Dec 11, 2012
Dogsoldier wrote:
Don't waste your time voting. It's the judges who decide not the people.
We have set ourselves up for that, we donít have enough limitations on what kind of bills can be voted upon.

I can put a bill on the ballot that denies blue eyed people the vote, and passed by the majority of brown eyed people.

but it would be rightfully overturned as unconstitutional.

The problem is allowing such nasty out of state funded propositions on the ballot in the first place.

example

Save the Horses proposition - A proposition prohibiting the raising of horses for human consumption, Put on the ballot and paid for by Arizona ranchers that raise horses in Arizona for human consumption who donít want competition from California

Prop 8 should never have ever been allowed on the ballot in the first place. Paid for by strong arm tactics of an out of state church that saw a window of opportunity in a single year, that would close the following year.

Put on the ballot today.. Prop 8 would go down in flames.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170803 Dec 11, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We have set ourselves up for that, we donít have enough limitations on what kind of bills can be voted upon.
I can put a bill on the ballot that denies blue eyed people the vote, and passed by the majority of brown eyed people.
but it would be rightfully overturned as unconstitutional.
The problem is allowing such nasty out of state funded propositions on the ballot in the first place.
example
Save the Horses proposition - A proposition prohibiting the raising of horses for human consumption, Put on the ballot and paid for by Arizona ranchers that raise horses in Arizona for human consumption who donít want competition from California
Prop 8 should never have ever been allowed on the ballot in the first place. Paid for by strong arm tactics of an out of state church that saw a window of opportunity in a single year, that would close the following year.
Put on the ballot today.. Prop 8 would go down in flames.
Or you could vote for the candidate who supports the tyranny of the majority on taxes. The 99% can raise taxes on the 1% so their own taxes don't have to be raised. NICE!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170804 Dec 11, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you could vote for the candidate who supports the tyranny of the majority on taxes. The 99% can raise taxes on the 1% so their own taxes don't have to be raised. NICE!
Hey dumbfuck.

The post you responded top had nothing to do with taxation.

Just an FYI shitforbrains.

BTW...no girlfriend??

No wife????

LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170805 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey dumbfuck.
The post you responded top had nothing to do with taxation.
Just an FYI shitforbrains.
BTW...no girlfriend??
No wife????
LOL!!!
Sure, she's sitting right here. I keep her privacy especially with psychos like you around. I'm certainly not going to post her picture and address like you did. By the way, your wife is pocchari and not half bad.

So we got my personal info you were so desperate to know out of the way, tell me if someone doesn't have a wife or girlfriend does that make the wrong?

What a jackass!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#170806 Dec 11, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you could vote for the candidate who supports the tyranny of the majority on taxes. The 99% can raise taxes on the 1% so their own taxes don't have to be raised. NICE!
as opposed to the tynary of the minority of the 1%

Yeah

I would like another alternative, but have not been given one.

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.

Oakdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 6 hr g 2,270
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 8 hr zhuzhamm 5,079
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 13 hr Pizza 16,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Wed Blazing saddles 7,954
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Sep 16 ūüôąūüôą 99
michael walker? Sep 15 meh 1
I am a multi millionaire (Aug '13) Sep 9 KeS 16
•••
•••

Oakdale Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oakdale News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••