Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201884 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

ELH

Portland, OR

#151846 Jul 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
SCOTUS ruled that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
Maybe you would like to help explain what they were referring to???
Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
The case overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States and had nothing to do with PROCREATION.

[QUOTE who="Johann Friedrich Blumenbach']
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[/QUOTE]

Apparently up until 1967 interracial relationships were socially TABOO! In fact it was ILLEGAL for white people to marry people of different races and especailly illegal for white people to marry black people!!!

It will probably come as a huge shock to someone as opened minded as you are but lots of people where really pissed off about this ruling and anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states until 2000.
KiMare wrote:
SCOTUS ruled that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
Interesting editing..here's the REST of the ruling:

" To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

" The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"


The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:


" There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

LOL, That last bit, especially "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.", sort of changes things doesn't it?

Now, Since measure 8 (and other state laws) clearly violate the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of The Constitution maybe YOU would like to explain why this same standard be not applied apply to DISCRIMINATION against same sex couples?

OMG...here comes a shit storm of nutty spam!



Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#151853 Jul 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Ah, Wat ASSumptions.
The only thing you know about my belief system is that I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.
Wat a bigot.
Look who's calling whom a bigot, bigot.
ELH

Portland, OR

#151854 Jul 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
I was raised as a boy because my penis is functional, my vagina is not. While most hermaphrodites are sterile, I am not (It was difficult, a miracle you might say.).
You are so very "exceptional"! Fascinating story you have going there...Except that back when you were born your testicles would have been lopped off when you were an infant because it was easier. And BTW, since there is such a high rate of testicular cancer in intersexed people the medical profession has come full circle on this and castration would be the most likely recommendation NOW too.

So, does your (imaginary) kid look like the UPS guy?
KiMare wrote:
I am glad I can make you laugh and cry at the same time.
Cry? Keep dreaming you delusional fucktard.
KiMare wrote:
If you don't like my posts here, you are welcome to leave.
Tell me...how does your tiny brain contain that giant ego of yours?
Bill Of Rights

Tempe, AZ

#151855 Jul 24, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets hear more gay humor ...
Well your mouth is open isn't it? LOL,Close it and poof! No more lie's will come out! LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#151856 Jul 24, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
The case overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States and had nothing to do with PROCREATION.
<quoted text>
Apparently up until 1967 interracial relationships were socially TABOO! In fact it was ILLEGAL for white people to marry people of different races and especailly illegal for white people to marry black people!!!
It will probably come as a huge shock to someone as opened minded as you are but lots of people where really pissed off about this ruling and anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states until 2000.
<quoted text>
Interesting editing..here's the REST of the ruling:
" To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
" The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
" There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
LOL, That last bit, especially "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.", sort of changes things doesn't it?
Now, Since measure 8 (and other state laws) clearly violate the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of The Constitution maybe YOU would like to explain why this same standard be not applied apply to DISCRIMINATION against same sex couples?
OMG...here comes a shit storm of nutty spam!
You missed a part:
"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
Clearly through the decision of the court it found that the union of the Loving's was alike in all ways to any other marriage aside from the color of the skin, something the 14th Amendment clearly was designed to eliminate. The real question comes when we ask, will the SCOTUS answer the question the same when it comes to a union which is only similar, not exactly the same as all other marriages, as is the case with same sex marriages. This question is yet to be answered, but what we do know is they didn't see a need to over turn Hernandez v Robels.
Bill Of Rights

Tempe, AZ

#151857 Jul 24, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you are gay so I would expect you to close you ears and look the other way, you can't handle the truth
And you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass! LOL,You've got to be about the dumbest MO FO except for your buddy the Bi-sexual Gayry on this thread! I mean they don't call you the village idiot for nothing do they? Tell us,how does one grow up to be as completely ignorant as you are? I bet if Gayry the Bi-sexual under age tranny lover blew in your ear you could feel and hear the wind coming out the other ear! LOLOL
ELH

Portland, OR

#151858 Jul 24, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah Blah..
Is this a "debate" or an "argument"?

Or does our Constitutional Scholar, MasterDebator, Philosopher extrodenair have his whitey tighties in a bunch?
ELH

Portland, OR

#151859 Jul 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
The only thing you know about my belief system is that I am a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.
Delusional much?

Aside from knowing that you are a former mental patient who has to carry around a note stating that (s)he is allowed to be out in public unsupervised...

we do know that you are a self centered narcissist prone to sweeping generalizations, wild exaggerations and frequent "Professor Marvelous" ass kissing.

ELH

Portland, OR

#151860 Jul 24, 2012
akpilot wrote:
The real question comes when we ask, will the SCOTUS answer the question the same when it comes to a union which is only similar, not exactly the same as all other marriages, as is the case with same sex marriages.
Gender aside, why isn't SSM marriage EXACTLY the same as "other" marriages?
Bill Of Rights

Tempe, AZ

#151861 Jul 24, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Delusional much?
Aside from knowing that you are a former mental patient who has to carry around a note stating that (s)he is allowed to be out in public unsupervised...
we do know that you are a self centered narcissist prone to sweeping generalizations, wild exaggerations and frequent "Professor Marvelous" ass kissing.
You know ELH with someone of His/Her background you would think He/She would be more understanding and empathetic and show some plain old compassion towards others that have lived through similar situations and life experiences! Makes one wonder and go...Hmmmmm??? Pretty damn sad if you ask me! Carry on good lady! ;)
ELH

Portland, OR

#151862 Jul 24, 2012
Bill Of Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
You know ELH with someone of His/Her background you would think He/She would be more understanding and empathetic and show some plain old compassion towards others that have lived through similar situations and life experiences! Makes one wonder and go...Hmmmmm??? Pretty damn sad if you ask me! Carry on good lady! ;)
I seem to recall a previous asspuppet who's "best friend" died of "AIDS"... Interestingly, "she" was also mentally ill and physically deformed. It sure makes you wonder about the female influences in a certain emotionally crippled anti social hatemongers childhood.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#151863 Jul 24, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Gender aside, why isn't SSM marriage EXACTLY the same as "other" marriages?
If I have to explain that to you, you need more help than I could ever provide you.

Here is the problem that you and most other's on this forum have, you are unwilling to accept that the two simply aren't the same, similar yes, but not the same. That doesn't make one better than the other, it is just an acceptance of fact.

The other problem you have is that you lump everyone into the same category, if they aren't 100% behind you they are a bigot, that's a great way to win people over. Because I don't accept that there is a Constitutional requirement to allow same sex marriage or compel the people and the State's to do so, doesn't mean I am against it. I simply follow the Constitution as it was drafted. I agree with most here, I don't see any compelling argument to ban same sex marriage, I think it is silly and I also feel we have much more important things to worry about. But with that said, I cannot sit by and watch the Constitution get trampled just to get my way. Take for instance- gun laws- I see no reason why people should be restricted from having fire arms, but if a State or local community decides to ban them there isn't a Constitutional argument against them doing so. The 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the Federal Government not the State or the People, the SCOTUS has really screwed up with this incorporation doctrine nonsense.

Prof Marvel

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#151864 Jul 25, 2012
Marcia_Marcia_Marcia wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not respond to your LGBT sex cult comment so that is why i did not rebut it. But a cult uses mind control
1.People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
2.Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
3.They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;
4.They get a new identity based on the group;
5.isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled
The LGBT community does make people dress a certain way or isolate them form their families.
Your list of sex cult markers is helpful. It shows the LGBT community meets the definition of sex cult almost entirely.

Directly below I've placed each of your list items in brackets. My response follows without brackets.

[1.People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;]

Gays are told they are being oppressed. This causes physical and emotional distress.

[2.Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;]

Gays are told the full acceptance of homosexuality by society will solve all their problems. Forty years ago gays were told the repeal of sodomy laws would solve their problems. Ten years after that they were told bathhouses would solve their problem.

But their problem is their mental disorder -- homosexuality -- not how society responds to it.

If you have brain cancer society's response to it doesn't cure it.

[3.They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;]

"Coming Out" is ritual whereby the new gay joins the extended gay family. The new gay receives unconditional love and acceptance from the group.

[4.They get a new identity based on the group;]

In other words, "Coming Out" bestows upon the new gay a new identity -- homosexual.

[5.They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled]

Although this is not literally done, members of the LGBT community do not deviate a syllable from the LGBT agenda. Unspoken pressure causes new members raised in traditional religion to reject their religion and birth family if their religion and birth family doesn't accept the LGBT agenda.

Criticism of the LGBT agenda is absolutely forbidden which is why we never see deviation from its talking points in forums such as this one.

When gay journalist Randy Shiltz criticized the LGBT community for its post-pride obligatory orgies he was immediately ostracized. Other gay writers and public figures experienced the same thing.

People are not allowed to conceal their homosexuality. When gay activists get wind a prominent person is homosexual they publicly expose him.

Most gays come from good families where conspicuous acts of lewdness like lying on a beach in Fire Island and sucking-off all comers s(no pun) would be considered an abomination. Once joining the LGBT community lewdness is redefined -- in fact, it is stripped from the acolyte's vocabulary entirely -- he is encouraged to show his loyalty by allowing himself to be dry-humped in public or letting his "top" lead him around in public on a dog leash.

[The LGBT community does (not?) make people dress a certain way or isolate them form their families (it usually the families that isolate the family member) and they do not control access to information.]

The LGBT community and homosexuality are not the same thing. The homosexual generally is not isolated from his family until they see or hear reports of him marching down main street in a penis suit and erect penis hat.

Summary:

All the characteristics of a sex cult are found in the LGBT community.

And once again, thank you for identifying these characteristics for us.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#151865 Jul 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Summary:All the characteristics of a sex cult are found in the LGBT community.
Thanks again for showing us just how much of an idiot you actually are.......but then, most who post in this thread already knew that!!!

Again, the GLBTQI Community is NOT a sex cult, no matter how much you want them to be.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#151866 Jul 25, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't remember the last time I bother presenting an actual argument on this thread.
Now that is a truthful statement. I wonder if you are even capable of a actual argument!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#151867 Jul 25, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia - 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
The case overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ended race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States and had nothing to do with PROCREATION.
<quoted text>
Apparently up until 1967 interracial relationships were socially TABOO! In fact it was ILLEGAL for white people to marry people of different races and especailly illegal for white people to marry black people!!!
It will probably come as a huge shock to someone as opened minded as you are but lots of people where really pissed off about this ruling and anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states until 2000.
<quoted text>
Interesting editing..here's the REST of the ruling:
" To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
" The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
" There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
LOL, That last bit, especially "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.", sort of changes things doesn't it?
Now, Since measure 8 (and other state laws) clearly violate the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of The Constitution maybe YOU would like to explain why this same standard be not applied apply to DISCRIMINATION against same sex couples?
OMG...here comes a shit storm of nutty spam!
Morning Honey,

I ignored nothing. I am fully aware you have read these rulings.

The simple reality is, the fundamental basis of a ruling is often used to justify other decisions. In fact, that is exactly how you are trying to justify SSM.

The statement I quoted is the fundamental basis of the SCOTUS Loving vs Virginia ruling;

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

You also know, but deliberately deny, that quote refers to procreation within marriage, the natural and best place for members of society to birth and mature.

Smile.

“"Deemed Unconstitutional "”

Since: Jun 09

San Jose Ca.

#151868 Jul 25, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Morning Honey,
I ignored nothing. I am fully aware you have read these rulings.
The simple reality is, the fundamental basis of a ruling is often used to justify other decisions. In fact, that is exactly how you are trying to justify SSM.
The statement I quoted is the fundamental basis of the SCOTUS Loving vs Virginia ruling;
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."
You also know, but deliberately deny, that quote refers to procreation within marriage, the natural and best place for members of society to birth and mature.
Smile.
And yet,still just a part of marriage and still NOT a requirement! You can continue to say it till the cows come home,but the fact remains,just a part and NOT a requirement! Marriage equality will not cause procreation to cease,nor will it cause a shortage of humans on our planet! Smile

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#151869 Jul 25, 2012
Aurora Borealis wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet,still just a part of marriage and still NOT a requirement! You can continue to say it till the cows come home,but the fact remains,just a part and NOT a requirement! Marriage equality will not cause procreation to cease,nor will it cause a shortage of humans on our planet! Smile
"Just a part"? The Supreme Court bases a landmark ruling on the distinction and you brush it aside to impose a completely distinct relationship on marriage?

You have your own identity, live with it.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#151870 Jul 25, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
You claimed gay marriage would lead to more prison rape. How would that work?
Most inmate relationships aren't consensual.

Down with antidemocratic judges ignorant of law and precedent.

“"Deemed Unconstitutional "”

Since: Jun 09

San Jose Ca.

#151871 Jul 25, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Just a part"? The Supreme Court bases a landmark ruling on the distinction and you brush it aside to impose a completely distinct relationship on marriage?
You have your own identity, live with it.
My own identity? Heterosexual? Is that what you mean? Well then according to your logic then,US heterosexuals who want to marry and chose to not have children should also be barred from marriage,right? I mean according to you they are not fulfilling or doing their duty to propagate the species! Oh,that's right they are allowed to get married even though they won't have kids! Reeks of hypocrisy and so do you! I repeat it is a part of marriage but not the only factor! And that is a true statement no matter how you attempt to twist it! All heterosexuals who will not procreate are here by banned from marriage from this day forward! Ridiculous! LOL

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.

Redondo Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Suncoast Outcasts Bowling League 7 min SUNCOAST OUTCASTS... 35
Review: Super Tuesday Las Vegas Bowling League 7 hr SUPER TUESDAY LEAGUE 40
Review: Cascade Windows (Jul '10) Jan 16 PM northern nevada 54
Inglewood Lanes is new located at 4030 W. Centu... (Feb '16) Jan 15 LONG LIVE BOWLING 504
Review: South Point Bowling League Jan 15 South Point Bowli... 40
News Harbor-UCLA Medical Center cited for safety vio... (Oct '11) Jan 15 Human 265
LA71 Annual Memorial Day Parade - Redondo Beach Jan 15 LA71 KCLA TV LOS ... 1

Redondo Beach Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Redondo Beach Mortgages