Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,321

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

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170765 Dec 10, 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!!!
She says while insulting the poster and bringing nothing to the discussion.

Priceless!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170766 Dec 10, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
But Skinner vs Oklahoma wasn't about the right to marry, it was about the right to procreate and that the right couldn't be taken away just like the right to marry can't be taken away!!!
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.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#170767 Dec 10, 2012
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.
Nonsense. There is no marriage license required for procreation. Skinner was a 40s court decision about mandatory sterilization of a mentally disabled individual. What's more, procreation is not a legal requirement of marriage. Procreation is a fundamental right and so is the right to marry the person of your choice.

Are you trying to be funny?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#170768 Dec 10, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
She says while insulting the poster and bringing nothing to the discussion.
Priceless!
I've brought to this discussion in the beginning.....now it's just a bunch of trolls who have nothing better to do but insult others.......and akpilot can yawn all he wants, but he usually has good stuff except when he lowers himself to a level of someone he can't seem to ignore!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170769 Dec 10, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. There is no marriage license required for procreation. Skinner was a 40s court decision about mandatory sterilization of a mentally disabled individual. What's more, procreation is not a legal requirement of marriage. Procreation is a fundamental right and so is the right to marry the person of your choice.
Are you trying to be funny?
No, I was stating a fact. Since neither of us sit on the SCOTUS, it really doesn't matter what we think, so the best we can go on is the case law as it is.

The problem I have, is when people try to twist and distort a decision, such as trying to use the Loving v Skinner decision as some type of mandate for same sex marriage. Something which it clearly was not. And thus far, there is NO SCOTUS decision which mandates a right to marry the person of your "choice".

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170770 Dec 10, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I've brought to this discussion in the beginning.....now it's just a bunch of trolls who have nothing better to do but insult others.......and akpilot can yawn all he wants, but he usually has good stuff except when he lowers himself to a level of someone he can't seem to ignore!!!
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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#170771 Dec 10, 2012
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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170772 Dec 10, 2012
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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#170773 Dec 10, 2012
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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#170774 Dec 10, 2012
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!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170775 Dec 10, 2012
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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170776 Dec 10, 2012
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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#170778 Dec 10, 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.
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!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#170779 Dec 10, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry it bores you.
No, you're not......so, try not to placate me!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170781 Dec 11, 2012
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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170782 Dec 11, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're not......so, try not to placate me!!!
Are you a mind reader now?
what

Irving, TX

#170784 Dec 11, 2012
i only poot.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#170785 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!!!!
Judging by her size, there is no way for her to get 'under' anyone's skin. And 'over' likely would be deadly...

:-)

“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!

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Charles Koch calls on fellow conservative donor... 1 hr Le Jimbo 99
Chinese tourists power-shopping in U.S. (Aug '13) 11 hr You Sociopath di... 7
66 high school students told to stay home over ... Thu NO PROBLEM 1
stores with bad customer service {list your wor... Jan 28 Mike 9
grill a burger in palm desert, ca. Jan 24 Betty 1
mexican landscapers dump in the desert Jan 21 its me daisy 40
Review: Tj's Steaks Pasta & Spirits Jan 20 Wordonthestreet 1
Palm Springs Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:24 am PST