Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201847 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.

The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130727 Feb 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Now all of a sudden because the sperm met the egg the female now has the choice over life or death, over child support or not, over everything?
I think this OFF TOPIC issue was decided 40 years ago. It looks like yet another case where the high court ruled without consulting YOU for your "expert opinion"? Get over it already.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130728 Feb 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Then one should err on the side of life. We seem to forget that there is in fact another life involved here, even if we want to reduce it to a glob of cells.
I'm sorry, but there are far to many options to prevent pregnancy, and most have error rates that are negligible.
If one want's the right to sex, one must accept the possible consequences which may occur from exercising that right.
Now mind you, I am not 100% pro-life, there is a time and place for everything, but "opp's" isn't one of them.
It really does say a lot about our society when we are unwilling to protect the most innocent and defenseless among us.
Do tell me, great protector of the unborn, have you ever mentored a teen parent? Or provided a temporary home for a homeless pregnant girl?

Even though my parents didn't teach me to be responsible
over the past ten years I have mentored and sometimes sheltered 17 teen parents. We have also fostered dozens of kids and adopted three of them

As a "defender of the helpless and innocent" exactly how many of the unwanted children that come into the system due to abuse, neglect and abandonment have YOU fostered or adopted?

Unless the answer is one or more YOU can climb down off your soap box and STFU. Your worthless preaching might make you feel better but hollow WORDS don't do one damn thing to help anyone.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130729 Feb 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
You do realize you don't win a debate by simply claiming the other person is wrong don't you?
Debate? Is that want the kids are calling it now? Bored.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#130730 Feb 29, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Getting back to the undisputed KING of stupid... My kind? Married, monogamous, females? You know, the women who don't bother looking at your kind, much less letting them touch us. TeeHee.
Who would want to touch a "PORKER" from Porkland

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#130731 Feb 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Then one should err on the side of life. We seem to forget that there is in fact another life involved here, even if we want to reduce it to a glob of cells.
I'm sorry, but there are far to many options to prevent pregnancy, and most have error rates that are negligible.
If one want's the right to sex, one must accept the possible consequences which may occur from exercising that right.
Now mind you, I am not 100% pro-life, there is a time and place for everything, but "opp's" isn't one of them.
It really does say a lot about our society when we are unwilling to protect the most innocent and defenseless among us.
Preventing gay couples from legally marrying will not prevent a single abortion, but, it will make the multitudes of gay couples who adopt unwanted children a bit more secure. And their children more secure as a result.

Why in the world would this be a problem for someone who says they value life?
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#130732 Feb 29, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you really don't know JACK SHIET about what 2 women do or what 2 men do.....sorry, all you post is typical stereo crap!!!
I's all so simple, in all casses a male penis shaped device is used to achive the ultimate experience. Don't lie
Winston Smith

United States

#130733 Feb 29, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
I's all so simple
At least you got that portion right.

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

#130734 Feb 29, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
you are confusing legislation with a constitutional amendment which by definition cannot conflict with the constitution.
You also misinterpret the way authority passes from the state to the federal govt, and not the other way around. The entire US constitution does not apply to the states. Even the whole bill of rights does not.
As you say, CA has its own folly here, but that does not make what you said an accurate statement of the law.
Like science, with the law, words have precise meanings which you seem to bowl over.
Really? The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.

Which of them do not apply to all 50 States?!? Do tell. Cite your source.

Eric
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130735 Feb 29, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>

It's not my position it's the law. My position, since you asked is that a woman who decides to keep a child she can not support physically or emotionally is nine times out of ten incompetent to parent. However that does not mean that we as society should turn our backs on the child. However I also think that subsequent pregnancies (except in cases of rape or incest) should NOT be subsidized by additional benefits.
And actually, this makes a pretty good case against polygamy since the (well documented) social costs of polygamy are quite high. Domestic battering, forced marriages and sexual abuse of minor girls, welfare fraud and tax fraud and lack of educational opportunities are rampant in polygamist communities.
One of my biggest issues with polygamist having children. Widespread reliance on welfare and the unusually high levels of CHILD POVERTY.
The TV series "Big Love" aside, according to the 1997 U.S. Census there are areas in Utah EVERY school-age child is living below the poverty level, The legal wife is declares on a mans taxes but the other wives as "single mothers" ofter get benefits including cash assistance, food stamps and free medical care for them selves and multiple children. Medicaid pays for more than 1/3 of the babies born in Utah.
yes, you made an intelligent showing for sure. And I appreciate that.

"Domestic battering, forced marriages and sexual abuse of minor girls," is sort of like speaking of gay marriage in terms of what occurs at the NYC gay pride parade.

It is using a stereotype as support. All I am saying is it is the EXACT same as saying gays have way more sex partners so they will not REALLY commit and end up leaving any adopted or artificial children. I mean look at what happens in NYC during the gay pride parade!

That is also a way you could read the VT lesbian custody case. Lesbian chooses to be straight, child left in the wings, cost state tons in drawn out custody dispute.

As far as welfare fraud and tax fraud the arguments are the exact same if not more in that gay marriage creates an easy friends with healthcare benefits situation. Or think of all the immigrants who could gay marry their buddies in.

My whole point is either this line of thought is valid as applied to marriage rights, or it is not. It cant be that we cannot rely on traditional definitions and stereotypes as to gays but we CAN as to polygamy.

I honestly don't necessarily support polygamy personally, I just can't see how SOME people can deny that any of this "logic" applies to marriage rights and that use that EXACT SAME logic as opposes to polygamous marriage. In other words, if gay marriage is a right, how can it be and still polygamy not be...
its logically impossible.

As to our other off-topic, even by your thought process, a "woman's right to choose" only encourages a woman with no potential to care for the child (including support from dad) to have the child anyway with the expectation that daddy will pay up and that he is a deadbeat if he does not. When in such a case the only rational one is the dad who says I don't have the money to raise a kid! Its a policy that creates more wards of the state. I am in no way advocating for forced abortion or anything like that. I am only suggesting that a potential father could have the right to "opt out" making plain to a mother that she will be raising the child alone if she "chooses" to have the child and stop this illusion that she gets to choose a lifetime of payments for someone else, or not. Having the information may lead to be a better "choice".

Lastly, having lived on reservations in that area, native people make play the same game with gov't benefits and have a rough polygamy due to very lax rules on common law marriage. No doubt those statistics include natives.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130736 Feb 29, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
"Reality's" post started off on a less obnoxious note but it's only been two days and the posts are already starting to sound VERY FAMILIAR...100 consecutive rants about anal sex can't be too far off...
OR it just gets frustrating when you feel like you're talking to a brick wall...
but I appreciate the unsolicited trashing...
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130737 Feb 29, 2012
gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.
Which of them do not apply to all 50 States?!? Do tell. Cite your source.
Eric
see, this is actually should be common knowledge, but for someone claiming they know this stuff, its really common knowledge...
to avoid any claims of biased or "deep" source ...I'll use wiki, but you can google it anywhere you want and come back and make sure to say if you now agree...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bi...

"The Bill of Rights

United States Bill of Rights currently housed in the National Archives.
It is commonly understood that originally the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states; however, there is no such limit in the text itself, except where an amendment refers specifically to the federal government. One example is the First Amendment, which says only that "Congress shall make no law...", and under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion. A rule of inapplicability to the states remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to extend most, but not all, parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, a process known as incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The balance of state and federal power under the incorporation doctrine is still an open question and continues to be fought separately for each right in the federal courts."
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130738 Feb 29, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh puh-leez. Marriage takes babies away from women? Are you fucking nuts? Your comment about pedophilia is a lie, but don't let facts stops you from spreading your shit.
And since you OBVIOUSLY haven't been keeping up, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there isn't a rational basis for Prop 8.
Suck it, loser. People are catching onto your lies.
Mona you need to slow down and READ what I wrote...
RIGHT ABOVE WHAT YOU CITED I POSTED
"NOTE: I dont think the things I write below are true, but its as true as what you wrote. Old tradition, stereotypes and morality dressed up as science!"

I'll wait for that apology but I bet I'll keep waiting...
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130739 Feb 29, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh puh-leez. Marriage takes babies away from women? Are you fucking nuts? Your comment about pedophilia is a lie, but don't let facts stops you from spreading your shit.
And since you OBVIOUSLY haven't been keeping up, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there isn't a rational basis for Prop 8.
Suck it, loser. People are catching onto your lies.
I just read what I wrote AND I WROTE THIS JUST BELOW what you cited:
"The problem with this board is I am now going to get a bunch of posts saying how my claims here are not well founded (and insulted a bunch besides) without anyone catching that these reason are the same flake reasons Mona posted to polygamy and that is the point I am making."

My goodness...you FAIL!

CLEARLY I NEED CAPS WITH YOU

Also, if Walker found no RATIONAL BASIS, it means he used RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW so, NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?.Surely you can grasp this now!?!?!?!?

Now grasp that he found no rational basis as one had not been presented, then consider under that standard how the court can make up any reason,. so saying no reason was given is a failure under that standard of review!

Your refusal to read those parts of my post say it all, there is a reality and you will not acknowledge it...

and the worst part is you will not eat your crow or say sorry, you will march on saying the same inaccurate "facts" which since you now know are wrong are REALLY LIES.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#130740 Feb 29, 2012
Rules Of Evidence wrote:
<quoted text>
Oopsey daisy! LOL,It seems ratzo rizzo's posts go POOF! Praise and hallelujah! It seems even the Moderators agree that all his posts are off topic B.S.? Yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk!!! Now,any bets as to when the stay on prop 8 in California is lifted? It's only a matter of time!
Censorship Bill? Shame on you! Not at all progressive! No tolerance or diversity!

YUK!YUK!YUK!
sPAMoLATER

Monrovia, CA

#130741 Feb 29, 2012
SpamOlater has a built in rinse cycle too!
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#130742 Feb 29, 2012
akpilot wrote:
The US Constitution is silent on marriage, the Federal Government, and that includes the judiciary, has ZERO say in the matter.
Uh.... we realize you are ate up, but saying something as silly as "..the judiciary has ZERO say in the matter" reveals your disconnect with reality.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#130743 Feb 29, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
I just read what I wrote AND I WROTE THIS JUST BELOW what you cited:
"The problem with this board is I am now going to get a bunch of posts saying how my claims here are not well founded (and insulted a bunch besides) without anyone catching that these reason are the same flake reasons Mona posted to polygamy and that is the point I am making."
My goodness...you FAIL!
CLEARLY I NEED CAPS WITH YOU
Also, if Walker found no RATIONAL BASIS, it means he used RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW so, NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?.Surely you can grasp this now!?!?!?!?
Now grasp that he found no rational basis as one had not been presented, then consider under that standard how the court can make up any reason,. so saying no reason was given is a failure under that standard of review!
Your refusal to read those parts of my post say it all, there is a reality and you will not acknowledge it...
and the worst part is you will not eat your crow or say sorry, you will march on saying the same inaccurate "facts" which since you now know are wrong are REALLY LIES.
Honey, it was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled Prop 8 can't even pass rational revue. How you twisted that around to mean it's not a fundamental right is a job for Super Retard. Perhaps he can explain how you came up with such a ridiculous conclusion.... and one completely the opposite of what happened.
It probably has something to do with your low IQ:

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-bel...

"There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study"
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130744 Feb 29, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh.... we realize you are ate up, but saying something as silly as "..the judiciary has ZERO say in the matter" reveals your disconnect with reality.
Actually Mona, its you who are in the dark.

If you read any analysis of the 9th circuit decision, it was specifically tailored to avoid SCOTUS review.(By not finding a fundamental right and basing the decision on CA's constitution. So the SCOTUS is deprived of a say as there is no US constitutional issue.
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/perry...
"In the blogosphere, Judge Reinhardt’s Perry opinion has come under heavier fire from commentators favoring marriage equality than from those opposed to equality. Some gay-friendly commentators have lamented that the Ninth Circuit did not announce a general right of lesbian and gay couples to marry all over the country and have criticized the court’s narrow reasoning as “dishonest,”[2] analytically “wobbly,”[3] and “disingenuous.”[4] In my view, the court got it right, as a matter of law and as a matter of constitutional politics.

Start with the role of federal courts of appeals in our rule of law system: their role is a limited one, a point these pro-gay commentators have neglected. Such courts (1) are supposed to address the particular factual context presented by the parties,(2) must follow the binding precedent of their own circuit and of the Supreme Court, and (3) ought usually to choose narrow rather than broad grounds for decision. Judge Reinhardt’s Perry opinion is exemplary along all three dimensions.

Proposition 8 intended that gay and lesbian couples be carved out of civil marriage and relegated to a separate institution, domestic partnerships. The court properly viewed this official status segregation with suspicion—a suspicion that was confirmed by the proponents’ open denigration of lesbian and gay marriages and their inability to tie taking away marriage rights to a genuine public interest. The original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause was that the Constitution does not tolerate class legislation—namely, laws that separate one class of citizens from the rest and bestow upon its members a less esteemed legal regime and, with it, an inferior status.[5] This is exactly what Proposition 8 did. Hence, Judge Reinhardt was strictly enforcing the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as applied to the facts before him.

Should Judge Reinhardt have gone further, to rule that lesbian and gay couples in all states enjoy a “fundamental” right to marry, resulting in strict scrutiny that would be fatal to the exclusion of such couples in the laws of the more than forty states now denying marriage equality? For two decades, I have maintained that the Constitution does assure lesbian and gay couples such a fundamental right.[6] But I am not a court of intermediate appeal. As such a court, the Ninth Circuit panel was right, as a matter of standard legal practice, not to engage this broader argument."

That you think others are ignorant is what makes you dangerous as a misinformer. In short, everyone is always less informed after your posts..
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130745 Feb 29, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, it was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled Prop 8 can't even pass rational revue. How you twisted that around to mean it's not a fundamental right is a job for Super Retard. Perhaps he can explain how you came up with such a ridiculous conclusion.... and one completely the opposite of what happened.
Sure if you can explain how my opinion is the same as the one in the Stanford LAw review, portions of which are below.

Now, given I am ClEARLY right here and you have been CLEARLY wrong, will you take back the IQ thing or leave it stand that someone with a supposed low IQ nailed it and you were flat wrong as usual.

"Is taking away a minority group’s status as marriage-worthy constitutionally problematic? Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s opinion for the Ninth Circuit panel found it so, and the court demanded that the initiative’s proponents demonstrate a public interest (apart from moral condemnation) justifying this discriminatory demotion in status. The proponents’ primary justification was that discrimination against lesbian and gay couples helps the state encourage “responsible [i.e., marital] procreation” by straight couples. Judge Reinhardt could not understand how taking away marriage from lesbian and gay couples can reasonably be understood to encourage straight couples to procreate within a marital union.

In the blogosphere, Judge Reinhardt’s Perry opinion has come under heavier fire from commentators favoring marriage equality than from those opposed to equality. Some gay-friendly commentators have lamented that the Ninth Circuit did not announce a general right of lesbian and gay couples to marry all over the country and have criticized the court’s narrow reasoning as “dishonest,”[2] analytically “wobbly,”[3] and “disingenuous.”[4] In my view, the court got it right, as a matter of law and as a matter of constitutional politics.

Start with the role of federal courts of appeals in our rule of law system: their role is a limited one, a point these pro-gay commentators have neglected. Such courts (1) are supposed to address the particular factual context presented by the parties,(2) must follow the binding precedent of their own circuit and of the Supreme Court, and (3) ought usually to choose narrow rather than broad grounds for decision. Judge Reinhardt’s Perry opinion is exemplary along all three dimensions.

Should Judge Reinhardt have gone further, to rule that lesbian and gay couples in all states enjoy a “fundamental” right to marry, resulting in strict scrutiny that would be fatal to the exclusion of such couples in the laws of the more than forty states now denying marriage equality? For two decades, I have maintained that the Constitution does assure lesbian and gay couples such a fundamental right.[6] But I am not a court of intermediate appeal. As such a court, the Ninth Circuit panel was right, as a matter of standard legal practice, not to engage this broader argument."

A fundamental right requires a compelling reason, so by seeking only a rational reason, BY DEFINITION the right being discussed is not fundamental. There is no grey here. You are flat wrong. But are you big enough to ADMIT your ERROR. I bet no.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130746 Feb 29, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, it was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled Prop 8 can't even pass rational revue. How you twisted that around to mean it's not a fundamental right is a job for Super Retard. Perhaps he can explain how you came up with such a ridiculous conclusion.... and one completely the opposite of what happened.
It probably has something to do with your low IQ:
"There's no gentle way to put it: People who live in ignorance may simply be dumb, according to a new study."

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Settlement in Harney Case? 16 hr JANE 1
News Salt Lake Metropolis Utah Rest Room Transform S... 16 hr JANE 1
News Feds weigh in on Palo Alto DNA-privacy case 16 hr JANE 1
News Paid Research Study @ Stanford 16 hr JANE 1
News Tokyo Fish Story Gets Northern California Premi... 16 hr JANE 1
News Legislators ask California for $23M for Earthqu... 16 hr JANE 1
News California Lawmakers Look to Fund Early Earthqu... Thu Lorne 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Redwood City Mortgages