Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,192

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: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184844 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
marriage is now coming from people like me, that donít happen to be gay.
Why do u keep saying that? Does it matter? Do you think a great majority of people just happen to be gay?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184845 Mar 27, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
and the universe might reciprocate and allow(by law) your situation...
otherwise you are just digging a karmic hole for yourself.
lol WTF? Bong speaking again.
Hcklers

La Puente, CA

#184846 Mar 27, 2013
Heck what were you expecting?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#184847 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
From the oral arguments:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So it's just about -- it's just about the label in this case.
MR. OLSON: The label is -≠
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.
MR. OLSON: The label "marriage" means something. Even our opponents -≠
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Sure. If you tell -- if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what
it means to be a friend.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/627679/...
And that's it seems to me what the -- what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're -≠ all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.
In my town, there are two public drinking fountains. One says "whites only", the other says "non-caucasians". The fountains are the same, the water is the same. Only the label is different.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184848 Mar 27, 2013
Tell you what, lets stop bickering and make projections on what we think will actually happen ( regardless of if we agree on it or not )

here are some potential outcomes that I see ( please add more if you think them possible )

1 Overturn the appeal ( Prop 8 stands )

2 Uphold the Appeal ( Prop 8 is overturned in California )

3 Board overturn of Appeal ( Pro 8 falls and all such measures are overturned in other states than California )

4 Deny the petition for lack of standing ( decide the proponents of Prop 8 do not have standing and turn it back to the California courts who will immediately overturn Prop 8 affecting only California )

I donít see any other potential outcomes, on Prop 8 anyway, but feel free to add to the list if you can think of one.

I personally support #3 but do not actually think that will happen

I am actually starting to bet on #4, it is a way of making a statement, without actually making a statement and causing the least amount of turmoil in the short term, but does open a can of worms in the long term. The problem with #4 is that it means any law a governor does not support that is challenged, he can defeat simply by not defending it. That is a strange situation.

But still it is the easy way out for the Supremes, to just toss it back to the state, as they did with Gore vs Bush

My guesses is

Most likely 4
Very possibly 2
Very unlikely 1
Wont happen 3

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184849 Mar 27, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
how did you jump from from(my suggestion) encouraging bigots to move to red states?? to talking about camps??
Logical actually. If one does not believe in the orthodoxy of the left, in this case, SSM, one must be sent to a "reeducation camp" as has been established in the past by leftist, often communist regimes. There the non believers are "reeducated". So gay people who disagree with redefining marriage for the same reason(s) that some straight people do, marriage is about husband and wife and by extension their children, should be sent to "reeducation camps" to correct their thinking. After all any gay person who opposes SSM is automatically a traitor to the cause, self loathed, and/or ignorant.
are you so far to the reich, that you think in that language??
well?? benito????
What's that comrade, some are more equal than others?
i was just talking about gay tourist dollars, going to more gay accepting tourist destinations.
there is no "rainbow party"
Sparkle
by definition, anyone who joins the movement is tolerant.
Oh but of course.....it's always the other side that's not tolerant.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184850 Mar 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
In my town, there are two public drinking fountains. One says "whites only", the other says "non-caucasians". The fountains are the same, the water is the same. Only the label is different.
I would add a few more

Blue eyed people

Brown eyed people

Other eyed people

People over 5'10"

People under 5'11"

People with Blond hair ( natural only, artificially coloring does not apply )

People with brown hair

People with grey hair

People with Red hair

and then have a policeman standing by to make sure everyone uses the right drinking fountain.

that will make the point
Hcklers

La Puente, CA

#184851 Mar 27, 2013
What the heck were you expecting, a change of idiots who post BULL here?

No such luck, just a bunch of racists, religious nut cases who are making hell on earth of everyone else.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184856 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage, a fundamental right, as it been understood as a union of husband and wife.
legally speaking, that thought of strictly male / female marriage is waning, considering the arguments presented before SCOTUS yesterday. both sides conceed that marriage is a fundamental right and is beneficial to society. great to see some common ground for a change.

don't know about you, but i'm pretty eager to read today's transcripts as well.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184857 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people can consummate their marriage just like straight people. Keep in mind "consummation" does not equal reproduction. Any form of copulation would satisfy the definition of consummation for the sake of marriage.
maybe he goes by the same definition of "is" as pres. clinton did...or the same definition of sex, too, for that matter. LOL.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184858 Mar 27, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
If you people would simply read the Loving v Virginia decision you MIGHT, and I say might because many of you aren't that bright, understand why this decision has NOTHING to do with the current issue.
Loving V Virginia dealt with racial discrimination. The court was clear as to why it came to the decision it did.
" The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States."- Loving v Virginia
tehn you might explain that to the attornies arguing the cases before the judges then. it was referenced even in SCOTUS yesterday.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184859 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I would add a few more
Blue eyed people
Brown eyed people
Other eyed people
People over 5'10"
People under 5'11"
People with Blond hair ( natural only, artificially coloring does not apply )
People with brown hair
People with grey hair
People with Red hair
and then have a policeman standing by to make sure everyone uses the right drinking fountain.
that will make the point
Yes you did explain yourself just fine. Add in it was the evil white race that killed the natives and started wars.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184860 Mar 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Mkay.......... wacko. Who is calling for sending bigots to re-education camps? Is it the same boogey man that you use for every other excuse... this nebulous, un-named liberal?
Are those re-education camps anything like Faux news and learning history in Sunday school? ;)
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184861 Mar 27, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Yes you did explain yourself just fine. Add in it was the evil white race that killed the natives and started wars.
No.. all I was pointing out is how silly separate drinking fountains were... you have a problem with that too? I knew you were a bigot toward homosexuals, I didnít assume you were a racist as well.

Could be my fault I prefer to assume the best of people
Tom Pappas

Los Angeles, CA

#184863 Mar 27, 2013
You phaggets are not going to get your wish. Sorry.

You'll still have to gulp male loads and scissor other bitches behind closed doors.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184864 Mar 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Much more nefarious, I'm sure.
It always shocks me that is exactly how uninformed people are here, Sunday School versions of history and Faux news commentary for misinformation on current issues.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184865 Mar 27, 2013
From what I am seeing today, it looks like DOMA is going away.:)

We will find out in a couple of months

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184866 Mar 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. Never been a problem.
If ss friendships deserve those benefits without ever being capable of mutual procreation and it's special needs, then legally EVERYONE deserves them.
Apparently you think two men need the protection and provision that women and children do... Man up VV, man up!!!
So let me get this clear...

You're saying that sterile couples, elderly couples, and couples who will never have children SHOULD NOT get tax breaks and other tax benefits that families with children currently get?

You do understand that the woman suing against the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act is basing her case on the fact that she has had to pay over $300,000 in inheritance taxes don't you?

And based on what your posting seems to be saying, then no couple who doesn't have children (including you, since your children no longer live in your home) should be able to receive property from their spouse after a death without paying taxes. So if you die and your have a piece of property in your name or have an item that isn't considered joint property, then your wife would have to pay taxes on that property. And you're OK with that?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184867 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
From what I am seeing today, it looks like DOMA is going away.:)
We will find out in a couple of months
do you have a link to the transcripts? have they been loaded for viewing as yet?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184868 Mar 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
In my town, there are two public drinking fountains. One says "whites only", the other says "non-caucasians". The fountains are the same, the water is the same. Only the label is different.
Orrrrrr....In my town there are two rest rooms, one for men, one for women. Neither one restricts on the basis or orientation. Just like marriage, single union of one male plus one female, no restriction on orientation.

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
Crook in Arnold Oct 23 Commander Bunny 3
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Oct 20 Riverbank resident 105
Yucaipa City Council candidates answer questions Oct 8 Qeolersan 1
h*rny sky pe Oct 3 fallen10 1
Stanislaus county Embezzles hundred of thousand... (Nov '08) Oct 1 KeS 9
Fraud claims coming to court (Jun '07) Oct 1 KeS 3
Review: 5 Star Auto Sales Inc (Aug '10) Sep 26 motownx 6
Oakdale Dating
Find my Match

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 ]