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 8,033)

Showing posts 160,641 - 160,660 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184003
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The interesting thing about this post, is that it is exactly the same distortion tactics Hitler used to discredit Jews and Christians like Deitrick Bonhoeffer.
The fact of the matter is that Christians are on the front lines against abortion for any reason. You know that VV, and instead, make a bold-faced lie about what Christians believe and what they would do.
The same thing you foolishly attempted to do with my words and actions.
Do you understand how evil this type of thing is? How your blind pursuit of justifying homosexual behavior has darkened and perverted your thinking and spirit in every way?
I'm scared for you.
Yeah... Christians are on the front lines of "life at all costs".

Just ask any of them who would stand in line to flip the switch of an electric chair or the tens of thousands of them who have lined up to go to war or the millions who put their guns on their Bibles at night; just waiting for a burglar to break in so they can blow them to hell.

You and I both know that if there was a way to find out if a fetus was gay, but there wasn't a way to "cure" them, they would come up with a way to justify not bringing it into the world.

So don't try to blow smoke up my skirt, ya schmuck. I'll call you on the carpet every single time.

Since: Nov 11

Fukushima

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184004
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you come up with this all by yourself? I'm so proud.
LOL

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184005
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
How many voices do you hear Rose?
You can't own up to the lie you told.
Funny, really.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184006
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't own up to the lie you told.
Funny, really.
You are the one having that issue, not me.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184008
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one having that issue, not me.
You lied.
Grow a pair and admit it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184009
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You lied.
Grow a pair and admit it.
You see, if you would take my advice and get your GED, they would explain to you that simply repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it true.

But keep going Rose, everyone has to be good at something, and you have cornered the market on ignorance.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184010
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Bernard wrote:
Peer reviewed studies have concluded the typical male queer consumes 22.46 lbs of fecal matter on an annual basis.
Your "down-low" boyfriend hardly counts as a "peer". And the crap that you two consume is of no interest to the rest of us.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184011
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You see, if you would take my advice and get your GED, they would explain to you that simply repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it true.
You're just an ignoramus who thinks he understands the Constitution.
GED? LOL! I have a MS. What do you have?
Well, we know you have a BS, and I don't mean a Bachelor's...

You don't have any integrity, and that's worse than being stupid. And you are stupid, too.
akpilot wrote:

But keep going Rose, everyone has to be good at something, and you have cornered the market on ignorance.
You lied about what I said.
Grow a pair and admit it.
LOL @ you.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184012
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Apollo11911 wrote:
<quoted text>So after a year and a half of posting, you finally said what you could have long ago.
In all fairness, akpilot has made himself this clear several times. He and I crossed swords and came to an understanding quite a while back.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184013
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

You lied about what I said.
Grow a pair and admit it.
LOL @ you.
I didn't lie, you did.

That is why I provided a link to your previous post, while you have not.

Poor Rose, so desperately wants to be relevant.
Findmireinenfein d

Torrance, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184014
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

If John O'Mard marries Kevin Clash, which one will be the daddy and which the little boy?

http://freeport.ss.syntaxcom.com/schools/phil...

http://beingelmo.com/

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184015
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Can any of you read? I have already stated my position on DOMA.
One more time since you and your clan seem a bit slow- SEC 3 of DOMA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Got it?
<quoted text>
Prop 8 is a very distinct issue. CA is currently the only State where one can make the argument that the 14th Amendment has been violated. This is due to the fact that there are currently homosexuals in CA whom are legally marriage and will continue to be so even with prop 8. This creates a "special class" of homosexual citizen within the State- one class which can and is legally married, and another second class which cannot.
I fully expect the SCOTUS to uphold the Walker decision, I also fully expect them to limit that decision to the State of California. It is in fact the correct and Constitutional thing to do.
<quoted text>
Now this is a wide net. There is no enumerated power within the Constitution for the Federal Government to regulate or otherwise define marriage, thus under the 10th Amendment this falls to the State. This is the exact logic the court used when it ruled DOMA unconstitutional. I feel the court won't touch the issue of same sex marriage on a national level.
Here is what I think will come out of the SCOTUS with these cases, and what also would be the Constitutional thing for the court to do.
First- Rule that Prop 8 is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment for the reasons I stated above. They will limit this ruling strictly to California and the Prop 8 Issue.
Second- They will Rule that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional for the same reasons as the lower court ruling- The Federal Government Lack's the enumerated power to define or regulate marriage- thus this power lies with the States to define and choose on their own. This will serve a dual purpose:
1) It will prevent the Federal Government from limiting, removing, or denying equal rights to homosexual couples whom are legally married by a State which allows such unions. They will be required to treat them exactly the same in regards to all regulations, benefits, and tax laws.
2) It will leave the States free to decide on their own what constitutes a marriage within their own boarders, as it should be based on the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. Now I really don't think it's going to be long before all State legalize same sex marriage, public opinion is moving in that direction, and most people really don't care. But based on our founding as a republic and union of individual sovereign State's, it is up to each to decide.
Now you may not like that, and that may not even be the way the SCOTUS rules, as just like the entire Federal Government they are in a power grab, and if they can find a way to give the Federal Government purview over the regulation and control of marriage they most certainly will. But you should ask yourself, is the the "freedom" you are looking for?
I think you may be right in stating "most people don't care anyway". It seems to me, considering the reduced importance that Americans place on marriage as a whole, that support for SSM is largely based on indifference rather than any other single factor. Marriage, which used to grounded in a strong marriage culture, has become just another lifestyle choice among many.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184016
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Tzunammi wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask yourself.
Perhaps you have an argument related to the issue that shows your intelligence, rather than simply simple personal judgments of those who do have a reasoned argument?

Come on, give us your best shot.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184017
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah... Christians are on the front lines of "life at all costs".
Just ask any of them who would stand in line to flip the switch of an electric chair or the tens of thousands of them who have lined up to go to war or the millions who put their guns on their Bibles at night; just waiting for a burglar to break in so they can blow them to hell.
You and I both know that if there was a way to find out if a fetus was gay, but there wasn't a way to "cure" them, they would come up with a way to justify not bringing it into the world.
So don't try to blow smoke up my skirt, ya schmuck. I'll call you on the carpet every single time.
I blew your smoke away, and now you are farting more BS to cover your ass.

You claimed Christians would abort. They don't. You lied.

The fact of the matter is, the only hope for homosexual survival IS Christians! They have proved that over and over with the fight to protect any unborn child.

None of this changes the fact that the proof keeps coming in that homosexuality is a sexual defect. Just as every culture has long sensed. Epi-marker mistakes will simply soon confirm the fact.

By the way, you have carpet burns on your ass.

Smirk.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184018
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
I know they did, and I only talk like that to morons that still do
How does using a moronic argument (your words) further your case?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184019
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How does using a moronic argument (your words) further your case?
it is like the golden rule

I expect you treat others how you would like to be treated, so I oblige.
Pietro Armando

Natick, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184020
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

7

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/lov...

Love and Marriage
by D’Vera Cohn

Americans believe that love is the main foundation of marriage. Most who never have been married say they would like to be at some point in their lives. However, statistics show Americans aren’t rushing to the altar, and the U.S. marriage rate is at an all-time low—only 51% of adults were married in 2011, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics.

The romantic ideal of marriage plays out in survey data that show whether they are married or not, Americans are more inclined to choose “love” as a reason for marriage than any other factor. In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, love wins out over “making a lifelong commitment,” as well as “companionship,”“having children,” and “financial stability” as a very important reason to wed.

Among married people, 93% say love is a very important reason to get married; 84% of unmarried people say so. Men and women are equally likely to say love is a very important reason to get married.

But love only goes so far. Most Americans cast cold water on a central premise of many a song or poem, that each person in the universe has only one true love. About seven-in-ten (69%) people do not agree with that notion; only 28% do. Among those who do agree, men (31%) are slightly more likely to do so than women (26%). Young and old, married and unmarried are equally skeptical.

Do You Want to Marry?

Especially for those who have never wed, marriage remains a life goal. About six-in-ten (61%) men and women who have never married say they would like to get married, according to the 2010 Pew Research survey. Only 12% say they do not want to marry and 27% are not sure.

That same survey found that a trip to the altar is not so appealing for those who have been there before. Among divorced adults, only 29% say they would like to marry again, with women more likely than men to say they do not want another trip down the aisle. Among widowed men and women, only 8% want to wed again.

Men and women’s attitudes about marrying for the first time are not different among young adults. But among never-married adults ages 30 to 50, men (27%) are more likely than women (8%) to say they do not want to marry.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184023
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I blew your smoke away, and now you are farting more BS to cover your ass.
You claimed Christians would abort. They don't. You lied.
The fact of the matter is, the only hope for homosexual survival IS Christians! They have proved that over and over with the fight to protect any unborn child.
None of this changes the fact that the proof keeps coming in that homosexuality is a sexual defect. Just as every culture has long sensed. Epi-marker mistakes will simply soon confirm the fact.
By the way, you have carpet burns on your ass.
Smirk.
"Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical " ( http://students.cis.uab.edu/keaira89/Statisti... )

So, with a full 86.7% of women who got abortions claiming a Christian affiliations, do you still believe that "Christians" won't have abortions?

You say that they would never have abortions and yet here are the figures that show differently. And there's always that "out" for them. You know, the one that allows them to abort a child who has mental or physical disabilities.

You've spent years on these forums telling us that gays are mentally deformed--genetic mistakes.

You're either being a liar or naïve when you say "Christians won't abort potentially gay fetuses."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184024
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Akpilot
Thought you might find this similar to your argument.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george...
DOMA is an abuse of federalism
By George F. Will,
“[U]nder the Constitution, the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.”
— U.S. Supreme Court,
Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948)
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an exception to the rule that a law’s title is as uninformative about the law’s purpose as the titles of Marx Brothers movies (“Duck Soup,”“Horse Feathers,”“Animal Crackers”) are about those movies’ contents. DOMA’s purpose is precisely what its title says. Which is why many conservatives and liberals should be uneasy Wednesday when the Supreme Court hears arguments about its constitutionality.
Conservatives who supported DOMA should, after 17years’ reflection, want the act overturned because its purpose is constitutionally improper. Liberals who want the act struck down should be discomfited by the reason the court should give when doing this.
DOMA, which in 1996 passed the House 342 to 67 and the Senate 85 to 14, defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. Because approximately 1,100 federal laws pertain to marriage, DOMA’s defenders argue that Congress merely exercised its power to define a term used in many statutes. But before 1996, federal statutes functioned without this definition, which obviously was adopted for the “defense” of marriage against state policies involving a different definition.“Before DOMA,” an amicus brief submitted by a group of federalism scholars notes,“federal law took state law as it found it.”
The question now is whether DOMA is “necessary and proper” for the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated congressional power. There is no such power pertaining to marriage. This subject is a state responsibility, a tradition established and validated by what can be called constitutional silence: The 10th Amendment says,“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The amicus brief takes no position on same-sex marriage as social policy. Rather, it addresses a question that should obviate the need to address whether DOMA violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The threshold question is: Does the federal government have the power that DOMA’s preamble proclaims, the power “to define and protect the institution of marriage”?
DOMA’s obvious purpose is, as the scholars’ brief says,“to reject state governments’ policy judgments.” Its purpose is to endorse, and to some extent enforce, the traditional understanding of marriage. The scholars’ brief says:
“Congress may regulate in this area to the extent necessary to further its enumerated powers. But it may not simply reject the states’ policy judgments as if it had the same authority to make domestic-relations law as they do. That is the difference between a government with a general police power and a government of limited and enumerated powers.”
Ernest A. Young of the Duke Law School, the principal author of the federalism brief, says the operation of DOMA cannot help but burden states because “federal and state law are pervasively intertwined.” To understand the harm that could be done by an unlimited federal power to define the terms of domestic-relations law, Young recalls when a few states, venturing beyond the national consensus, began experimenting with no-fault divorce. Suppose, Young says, Congress passed a statute refusing recognition, for purposes of federal law, of any divorce where neither party made a showing of fault:

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184025
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

“The couple would continue to be treated as married for purposes of federal income tax, health care programs and veterans’ benefits. Imagine the chaos this would wreak in the administration of state programs, and the pressure it would impose on states not to experiment with divorce law.”

As the scholars’ brief says, DOMA “shatters two centuries of federal practice” by creating “a blanket federal marital status that exists independent of states’ family-status determinations.” Federalism, properly respected, enables diversity as an alternative to a congressionally imposed, continent-wide moral uniformity. Allowing Washington to impose such conformity would ratify unprecedented federal supremacy regarding domestic relations, a power without judicially administrable limits. By striking down DOMA — by refusing to defer to Congress’s usurpation of states’ powers — the court would defer to 50 state governments, including the 38 that today prohibit same-sex marriage.

Liberals praise diversity but generally urge courts to permissively construe the Constitution in order to validate federal power to impose continental uniformities. DOMA is such an imposition. Liberals may be rescued from it by jurisprudence true to conservative principles, properly understood.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 160,641 - 160,660 of199,087
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
Oakdale Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Oakdale Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••