Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[NorCal Native]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Time for an Education:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson - 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Note that there is no citation- Why? Because it is the SOURCE!!
What is different about Loving v Virginia?
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). "
Oh, look at that, a citation. Imagine that, the SCOTUS referenced Skinner v Oklahoma when establishing a "right" to marriage.
And you explanation in regards to the meaning of the Skinner v Oklahoma is lacking as well.

Actually what the courts are saying is that marriage and procreation are fundamental rights and neither can be denied.

Skinner was about a person who was going to be forced to be sterilized because people thought he was incapable of raising children due to his low intelligence........the Justices stated that the State can't do that because procreation is a FUNDAMENTAL right that can't be denied, for any reason. So, Skinner vs Oklahoma is purely about procreation.

Loving vs Virginia is strictly about being denied the fundamental right to marriage regardless of race.

Even though one is mentioned in the other.........the common link is that both marriage and procreation are FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THAT CAN NOT BE DENIED!!!

I have learned so much about the cases that SCOTUS has ruled on regarding Marriage and Procreation and even though the 2 have been mentioned together......they don't go hand in hand!!!

Oh and I've been reading your posts for almost 4 years and we have even had discussions through pm......sorry, but the more I read these cases the more I understand that though both procreation and marriage are mentioned.......they are done so because they are major decisions in a couple's life.

I typically don't post to you, but just don't understand why you feel the need to continue to insult someone whom you think is not worth it in the first place.

[akpilot]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually what the courts are saying is that marriage and procreation are fundamental rights and neither can be denied.

No, that is not what the courts have said, that is what people are ASKING the courts to say which is why this issue is yet to be resolved.

[NorCal Native]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that is not what the courts have said, that is what people are ASKING the courts to say which is why this issue is yet to be resolved.

Sorry, but in the past that is exactly what SCOTUS has stated and they might do it again with regards to Prop 8 or they might just rule on the Standing issue(though I seriously doubt that)........we will know by June if SCOTUS truly meant that marriage is a Fundamental right or if they only meant it to be fundamental for heterosexuals.

[NorCal Native]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would I ignore the court jester, she is so entertaining.
And as far as lowering myself to her level? Hardly, at least in my posts I am pointing out facts in regards to her behavior as well as providing examples of such with references to her previous posts. In order to lower myself to her level I would simply repeatedly post-
LOLSER and CONDUMB over and over again in reply to every post.

If that's entertainment for you......then you really need another form of entertainment......because truly after 4 years, it's just pathetic!!!

She has a right to post her opinions and if ya don't agree with them......and ya don't, then you have the right to counter them......but to continue to make the same comments over and over and over again, is rather redundant and boring......I think you are better than that and if I am wrong......well, then it wouldn't be the first time!!!

[akpilot]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but in the past that is exactly what SCOTUS has stated and they might do it again with regards to Prop 8 or they might just rule on the Standing issue(though I seriously doubt that)........we will know by June if SCOTUS truly meant that marriage is a Fundamental right or if they only meant it to be fundamental for heterosexuals.

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.

[akpilot]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
If that's entertainment for you......then you really need another form of entertainment......because truly after 4 years, it's just pathetic!!!
She has a right to post her opinions and if ya don't agree with them......and ya don't, then you have the right to counter them......but to continue to make the same comments over and over and over again, is rather redundant and boring......I think you are better than that and if I am wrong......well, then it wouldn't be the first time!!!

Sorry it bores you.

[NorCal Native]

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.

SCOTUS has NEVER used the words, marriage is defined as a "Union between 1 man and 1 woman"........now, it may be true that they intend it to mean that, but they have NEVER specifically used those words or that language!!!

Actually DOMA has several sections and at the moment, only Section 3 is the one being challenged, but that does not mean that SCOTUS could not include Section 2 as well or wipe out DOMA all together.....but that is just speculation on my part......but Section 3 will be at the heart of their ruling!!!

[NorCal Native]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry it bores you.

No, you're not......so, try not to placate me!!!

[akpilot]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
SCOTUS has NEVER used the words, marriage is defined as a "Union between 1 man and 1 woman"........now, it may be true that they intend it to mean that, but they have NEVER specifically used those words or that language!!!

Please, name one time the SCOTUS have ever ruled anything other than the union of one man and one woman to be a marriage?

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually DOMA has several sections and at the moment, only Section 3 is the one being challenged, but that does not mean that SCOTUS could not include Section 2 as well or wipe out DOMA all together.....but that is just speculation on my part......but Section 3 will be at the heart of their ruling!!!

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.

[akpilot]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
No, you're not......so, try not to placate me!!!

Are you a mind reader now?

[what]

i only poot.

[KiMare]

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!!!!

Judging by her size, there is no way for her to get 'under' anyone's skin. And 'over' likely would be deadly...

:-)

[NorCal Native]

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!!!

[Mike DiRucci]

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!

[Mike DiRucci]

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]

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]

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]

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 isn’t really even in the cards, the state doesn’t 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]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Danth's Law.

GEEEEZUS.......LOL!!!!

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

LOL!!!!!!

[Dan C]

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.