Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,801

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.

Read more
ELH

Portland, OR

#144317 Jun 3, 2012
Bill Of Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean he accuses others of being in NAMBLA without any evidence what so ever(Rose No Ho) so I guess if we say it,it must be true also!
Obviously there is a wise and omnipotent 'hall monitor' on the internet who monitors EVERY SITE and removes anything that is untrue. If this wasn't the case then the web would be over crowded with all sorts of nutty web sites promoting all manner of ignorance and falsehood.

For example what if some idiot could post an outright LIE that there is a waiting list of (decent God fearing heterosexual) couples waiting to adopt "children"?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144318 Jun 3, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially seeing as a Constitutional Convention has NEVER been done before to change the Constitution.
I guess you forgot about the one in 1787? You do realize they weren't sent to Philadelphia to write a Constitution, but to Amend the Articles of Confederation. You also ignore the fact that the very reason we have a Bill of Rights at all is not because Congress wanted them, but because the States demanded them. While the states didn't call a Constitutional Convention to get the Bill of Rights, they certainly would have, or simply left the Union, had they not gotten one.

Not to mention, the Southern Secession was in and of itself a Constitutional Convention, they chose to leave the Union and drafted their own Constitution.

So to say "it has never happened" is a very interesting twist on reality.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#144319 Jun 3, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>That's nice, kill off any hope the poor boy had left...
Well, I discovered that little tidbit of information looking at a site about how the Constitution can be amended.....I am not aiming to kill off anyone's hope.....though the same thing can not be said for some from the other side!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#144320 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
are you really that stupid or do you just think everyone else is that stupid
If you want to compare it to golf then let's do that by all means
It would be like saying you are free to golf on the course
We will give you all the same rights and rules that men have
But you need to call yourself a woman golfer not a man golfer
Thanks for proving my point moron
I am saying they can have all of the same rights and play all of the same golf
We just are not going to call them men
Well....if I was a woman golfer why then could I not be CALLED a woman golfer.

Prove YOUR point....you just proved mine moron...LOL!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#144321 Jun 3, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you show your brokenness. Bigotry of religion by trying to judge something you know nothing about (ignorance).
Moses had one wife.
But to my point of brokenness, but not in you; The Bible makes it clear many times of Moses' brokennesss. Murder, anger and more.
Moses may have never existed.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#144322 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you completely skipped Article V.
Perhaps you can point us to the Article where it says that the Constitution can simply change because it must conform to social norms, circumventing Article V?
Buddy...you're no Constitutional Scholar so don't promote yourself as one.
ELH

Portland, OR

#144323 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you completely skipped Article V.
Perhaps you can point us to the Article where it says that the Constitution can simply change because it must conform to social norms, circumventing Article V?
Alas, unlike you, I am not an "expert" on the US Constitution. However my non-expert observations lead me to conclude that social norms have and will continue too influenced federal laws.And base on this I am certain that REALITY trumps your opposing OPINION.

The US Constitution was written on PAPER not inscribed stone
Dan

Roseville, CA

#144324 Jun 3, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
the score is 31 to 5
You are losing badly
Right.

I suppose you're in the Indy 500 daily on the way to work and as of yet no one has taken a checkered victory flag win away from you YET.

LOL!!!!

Go home.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144325 Jun 3, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Buddy...you're no Constitutional Scholar so don't promote yourself as one.
Is that why you can't debate anything I have said with any semblance of rational thought?
ELH

Portland, OR

#144326 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
You people need to stop functioning in fantasy land.
FUNNY.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144327 Jun 3, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Alas, unlike you, I am not an "expert" on the US Constitution.
That's an understatement.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#144328 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why you can't debate anything I have said with any semblance of rational thought?
We have debated moron. Funny how it's you who's afraid to bring those posts forward.

Listen Chicken Little...the sky won't fall should we allow gays to marry.

And as it is their basic contention of the idea of being married to each other despite they are of the same sex revolves around basic rights.

This is why I see a nationwide ability for gays to marry in upcoming years.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#144329 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an understatement.
You're no Constitutional expert so puh-lease Professor Phoney....give it a rest.
ELH

Portland, OR

#144330 Jun 3, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Buddy...you're no Constitutional Scholar so don't promote yourself as one.
AK knows more about the Constitution that those dumbazz judges sitting on the high court, with all that keeping pace with social norms and handing down of highly suspect and subversive pronouncements...

Hopefully some wise person on Obama's staff is following this thread right now and will alert the president who after careful consideration will immediately appoint AK to his rightful place on the high court.

As his first act he will make sure that the Constitution is finally carved into (actual) stone...

After the carving is done and the now useless paper document is shredded AK will (claim he csn) channel the "founding fathers" and use the information they supply thru him (and to him alone). The other justices will be in awe of AK's awesomeness and allow him to purge any laws that "misinterpret" the (real) intentions for the founding fathers thaking us all back to a much 'simpler' time.

It's going to be so GREAT!
ELH

Portland, OR

#144331 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why you can't debate anything I have said with any semblance of rational thought?
Because you don't seem to understand that YOU pronouncements are nothing more that your OPINIONS?

Or because you don't seem to grasp that repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it any less your OPTION or any more TRUE?

Or maybe it's just because you're a smarmy shithead who resorts to correcting grammar and spelling or insults?
ELH

Portland, OR

#144332 Jun 3, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an understatement.
Must suck to be reduced to editing so you can throw out one of your tired and predictable jabs.

And yet, despite Article V and your insistence, the REALITY is that social norms already have and will continue too influenced the opinions handed down by the high court.

Does it sucks to be wrong so often?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144333 Jun 3, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
We have debated moron.
If that's what you want to call your childish rants.
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why I see a nationwide ability for gays to marry in upcoming years.
Is that before or after the 31 States with Constitutional bans decide to change their minds?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144334 Jun 3, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Must suck to be reduced to editing so you can throw out one of your tired and predictable jabs.
I'm sorry, are you upset that I deleted all of your childish name calling?
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, despite Article V and your insistence, the REALITY is that social norms already have and will continue too influenced the opinions handed down by the high court.
Yes, isn't that the liberal way- Despite what the Constitution says- Article V- we will do anything we want.

Funny, you hide behind fabricated Constitutional protections when it suits you, but piss on it when it comes to the legal, and only way the founders provide, to actually Amend it.
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it sucks to be wrong so often?
You tell me.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144335 Jun 3, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
AK knows more about the Constitution that those dumbazz judges sitting on the high court, with all that keeping pace with social norms and handing down of highly suspect and subversive pronouncements...
I'm sorry that you need seem to think one needs a legal degree to actually read and comprehend what the founders wrote.

This is why you are an idiot, you lack the ability to think for yourself and simply follow what anyone in a black robe tells you.

BTW, why don't you tell us how ignorant this sitting judge was because you don't agree with him:

"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced."..."In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation."..."Pla intiffs cite Loving for the proposition that a statute can discriminate even if it treats both classes identically. This misconstrues the Loving analysis because the antimiscegenation statute did not treat blacks and whites identically—it restricted who whites could marry (but did not restrict intermarriage between non-whites) for the purpose of promoting white supremacy. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was the quintessential example of invidious racial discrimination as it was intended to advantage one race and disadvantage all others, which is why the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny and struck it down as violating the core interest of the Equal Protection Clause.

In contrast, neither men nor women are disproportionately disadvantaged or burdened by the fact that New York's Domestic Relations Law allows only opposite-sex couples to marry—both genders are treated precisely the same way. As such, there is no gender [*16]classification triggering intermediate scrutiny."
Hernandez v Robels

Let me know when your head stops spinning..

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#144337 Jun 3, 2012
ELH wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you don't seem to understand that YOU pronouncements are nothing more that your OPINIONS?
No, that would be you..

Unlike you, I have cited:
-The Founders- John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson to name a few

-The drafters of the 14th Amendment, from the Congressional Debates

-The SCOTUS

-Various State and Federal court decisions

Among various other sources, all of which you simply reply with your childish name calling.

BTW- here is what Thomas Jefferson thought of the SCOTUS:

" For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and
independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.
For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment.
The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted no where but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action;
and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. I will explain myself by examples, which, having occurred while I was in office, are better known to me, and the principles which governed them"- Thomas Jefferson

Nice try, but get a life.

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 What you have to say about the Rolling Stones i... 17 hr Dave 1
does anyone need a good dog walker (May '07) Mar 25 chicagodawg 46
does 4-stroke scooter take regular oil Mar 21 styxxx116 1
News German-American International School will move ... Mar 20 Samuel 1
News City Council Approves Parks and Recreation Depa... Mar 9 Nita Singler 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Feb '15 tera 112
News City Blows the Whistle on High-Speed Trains Feb '15 CTYKE 1
Redwood City Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]