Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162247 Oct 5, 2012
akpilot wrote:
So you admit there is no Constitutional right to marriage. Got it.
Clinging to being too stupid to understand the Role of the Supreme Court? Too stupid to use a question mark as well, I see.

Good for you.

Defending relegating your fellow Americans to Second Class Citizens. You must be so proud.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162248 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>A guy who claims that a right exists only if it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution and can't understand the meaning of Supreme Court Decisions that HE CITES has no business calling anyone else an idiot.
You're a Clown.
Oh my god you are an idiot.

Have you ever read the Constitution? How about the 9th and 10th Amendments?

The Constitution doesn't enumerate "right's" it enumerates power to the federal government. In this case, marriage is NOT listed, thus it is NOT a power of the Federal Government- that includes the SCOTUS.

The Federal Government lacking said power leaves that power to the states and the people- the regulation of marriage. Since the "people" have decided to allow the State the purview to regulate marriage it is now a State power. The people still retaining the ultimate power can choose either through direct intervention - such as the Proposition process in California -or- indirect intervention through elected officials- to change and vary said regulations regarding marriage.

The issue that we have in California that can be argued to drag the Constitution into the issue is the fact that this proposition disenfranchises a group of people from marriage while another group of the same status may engage in said act.

In other words, since you aren't very smart- since there are legally married same sex couples in the State, it could be argued that there is a violation of the 14th Amendment in not allowing other same sex couples in the state to do the same.

What this argument does not do, is make it a 14th Amendment issue that ALL same sex couples must be allowed to marry in all the States. There is no such power contained in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to regulate marriage laws to the states.

BTW, this is the exact same argument that caused DOMA to be ruled unconstitutional. Just though you should no that before you take to attempting to dismantle it because it doesn't audit with your fantasy world.

There is NO Constitutional right to marriage.

You really need to get an education.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162249 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Clinging to being too stupid to understand the Role of the Supreme Court? Too stupid to use a question mark as well, I see.
Good for you.
Defending relegating your fellow Americans to Second Class Citizens. You must be so proud.
Why would I use a question mark you idiot? I made a statement.

Your grammar isn't any better than your comprehension skills.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162251 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
But you can keep dancing if you like, it's pretty entertaining.
I've been quite consistent.

Dancing would accurately describe your flip flopping.

FLIP:
akpilot wrote:
There is no RIGHT to marriage
FLOP:
akpilot wrote:
"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)"- Loving v Virginia
FLIP:
akpilot wrote:
Marriage is a "right" with restrictions.
FLOP:
akpilot wrote:
There is no right to marriage in the Constitution
FLIP:
akpilot wrote:
So, you don't like the Loving v Virginia decision anymore?
FLIP FLOP FLIPPIDY FLOO
akpilot wrote:
So, let's recap. I have been very clear that there is no Constitutional right to marriage.....the SCOTUS has declared there is a "right" to marriage,
Let us know when you've made up your mind.

HA HA HA HA Talk about delusional!
akpilot wrote:
I have been very clear in my statements and thus far you have failed to refute any of them with anything other than your emotions and opinions.
Your sad little "Rights are somehow different than 'rights'", is just pathetic. Really. You're making an ass of yourself. It's right up there with a Clintonesque "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162252 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
The Constitution doesn't enumerate "right's" it enumerates power to the federal government.
What are the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution known as, dipshit? "The Bill of powers"? You are REALLY embarrassing yourself now.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162253 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>I've been quite consistent.
Dancing would accurately describe your flip flopping.
FLIP:
<quoted text>
FLOP:
<quoted text>
FLIP:
<quoted text>
FLOP:
<quoted text>
FLIP:
<quoted text>
FLIP FLOP FLIPPIDY FLOO<quoted text>
Let us know when you've made up your mind.
HA HA HA HA Talk about delusional!<quoted text>
Your sad little "Rights are somehow different than 'rights'", is just pathetic. Really. You're making an ass of yourself. It's right up there with a Clintonesque "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
OK child, I better let you get some sleep. You will need it for when you go back to high school next week.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162257 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution known as, dipshit? "The Bill of powers"? You are REALLY embarrassing yourself now.
You really are an idiot..

Start reading some history. You should start with the Madison Journal on the Convention, then move to the Federalist Papers. After that you can read up on the Ratification debates in Virginia and New York.

After reading the debates in Virginia and New York you may, and I am not holding out hope, but there is a chance you will understand why we have the Bill of Right's, and the difference between the purpose of those and the original text of the Constitution.

You should also read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, I doubt you even knew it existed. It pretty much explains why the Amendments were drafted and the purpose they served.

Go read up, then get back to us.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162258 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
OK child, I better let you get some sleep. You will need it for when you go back to high school next week.
I actually learned about Civics in High School. What's your excuse?

Everything else you've said is bad enough, but THIS takes the cake:
akpilot wrote:
The Constitution doesn't enumerate "right's"
You have demonstrated that you are wholly beyond you depth. You fancy yourself as clever, but you are simple. A twelve year old has a better grasp of this than you. There's no coming back from a statement THAT ignorant. You've just broadcast to the world that you're an idiot.

Enjoy your delusions.

"The Constitution doesn't enumerate rights"?!

Wow. Hard to believe someone THAT stupid is allowed to walk the streets.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162259 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>I actually learned about Civics in High School. What's your excuse?
Everything else you've said is bad enough, but THIS takes the cake:<quoted text>
You have demonstrated that you are wholly beyond you depth. You fancy yourself as clever, but you are simple. A twelve year old has a better grasp of this than you. There's no coming back from a statement THAT ignorant. You've just broadcast to the world that you're an idiot.
Enjoy your delusions.
"The Constitution doesn't enumerate rights"?!
Wow. Hard to believe someone THAT stupid is allowed to walk the streets.
You should tell your parents to request a refund from the school system.
But since you want to continue looking like a moron:
"If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS."- James Madison
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."- James Madison
But we really don't need their quotes do we? The Tenth Amendment really says it all:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Take note, the entire purpose of the Constitution was to create a framework of Government with specific POWERS delegated or ENUMERATED to it!!
Seriously, go back to school.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162260 Oct 6, 2012
I know you want to continue embarrassing yourself, but really, there is no need. Pretending that the Bill of RIGHTS doesn't exist will suffice to demonstrate that you're beyond hope.

Go to bed secure in the knowledge that you're the stupidest guy on the whole of the internet. There is no need for further demonstration.
akpilot wrote:
The Constitution doesn't enumerate "right's"
Wow.
Just, Wow.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162261 Oct 6, 2012
You follow up your claims that rights can ONLY be granted by the Constitution with claims that the Constitution DOESN'T grant rights. Again, you can't even agree with YOURSELF. It's amazing.

This is, of course, after you've declared that marriage Isn't a right, but it is, no wait! it isn't.

I can honestly say I haven't come across someone SO hopelessly clueless in quite some time. I mean, wow. Do you have a bib to keep the drool off of your keyboard?
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162263 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Take note, the entire purpose of the Constitution was to create a framework of Government with specific POWERS delegated or ENUMERATED to it!!
Seriously, go back to school.
That's funny that you seem to think I have said that the Constitution doesn't grant powers, so you need to set up another straw man. I have said no such thing. Tell me more about reading comprehension, dolt.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162264 Oct 6, 2012
LlE Buster wrote:
ou said Bill of Powers, so now you are saying that your teachers are idiots. There is no such thing as Bill of Powers. Kid, stop trying to pretend that you are not stupid.
Hey, dipshit. Get yourself some reading comprehension.

Read the statement I quoted and note that there was a QUESTION MARK backing up my "bill of powers" statement.

You're failing at trolling, but doing a great job making an ass of yourself. Chump.
Joe

Westminster, CA

#162265 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything you are you owe your parents- why not send them the penny and square up the account?
That is so corny you stupid bi-boi, have any mans milk lately ??

You freak

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#162266 Oct 6, 2012
Liam R wrote:
The government value from marriage has little to do with the children.
Government gains value from marriage because that institution gives children a stable home. Even an infertile husband and wife can give an adopted child something no same sex couple can; a mother and father.

.
Liam R wrote:
Children will be born regardless of the existence of marriages.
And single parent households are good for society how? Is crime, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependence, uneducated dropouts and violence a social good?

.
Liam R wrote:
The government gains value because married people are m more likely to own property and lead stable lives (and pay more taxes).
There's no law stopping same sex couples from considering themselves married, even if the law doesn't permit government to recognize those unions as marriage.

.
Liam R wrote:
And that is something that gays can do just as well as straights.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no justification for redefining marriage.

.
Liam R wrote:
Now, if the laws of this country did not recognize the right of people to choose their own mates from those that they love, then MAYBE you could claim that gays have the "same" rights as straights.
Our Constitution recognizes freedom of association, it doesn't create any right to define marriage laws for everyone based on sexual predilection.

.
Liam R wrote:
But, here is a news flash: NOBODY has arraigned marriages anymore. People get to choose to marry for love, or any other reason they wish.
The government has standards, DOMA defines marriage as one man and one woman.

.
Liam R wrote:
And as long as that is the case, then equal rights can ONLY be had if gays are allowed to marry any person they choose, REGARDLESS of gender.
Homosexuals have the same right to marry as everyone else, there is no gender equality right in the Constitution. There's no orientation test for marriage either.
TITE

Monrovia, CA

#162267 Oct 6, 2012
This is too easy.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#162268 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, dipshit. Get yourself some reading comprehension.
Read the statement I quoted and note that there was a QUESTION MARK backing up my "bill of powers" statement.
You're failing at trolling, but doing a great job making an ass of yourself. Chump.
Time for bed Skippy, you're getting cranky.
Bird cage

Monrovia, CA

#162269 Oct 6, 2012
Too bad the cage door is open.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162270 Oct 6, 2012
LlE Buster wrote:
First, soon people are going to get a brain. Gays lobbied for DADT and then years later they scream that it is discrimination.
Actually, what was lobbied for was a complete end to the ban on people who are gay serving in the military, DA/DT was the "compromise" we got for our efforts. It kept the discrimination in place, but, in theory, harder to abuse. Under Clinton, it worked, more or less as advertised, cutting dismissals from the thousands each year to hundreds, after Clinton, the "compromise" took gay people in the military right back where they started.
LlE Buster wrote:
Prop 8 does not disenfranchise a group and if so, then you do the illegal act which caused it. You do not enact another illegal act to adjust it. Prop 8 says that only marriages between a man and one are recognized in California. What part of "only" is not retroactive.
California's one time ban on interracial marriage didn't disenfranchise a group either. EVERYBODY shared the same right to marry within your approved racial categorization, no group had any more or less of a right under the law. It wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, an unpopular law and had, in fact, been a product of popular opinion of the late 19th, early 20th century against "race mixing" based both on religious belief and science of the day. But the question came up as to what about our rights as individuals? Under what authority does the state determine who we may or may not marry based on their racial categorization? Twenty years before the SCOTUS ruled in Loving, the California State Supreme Court determined that there was no legitimate interest of the state that was served by the ban. The so-called "science" against it was nothing more than a bad practical joke and whether God says no or not, really doesn't matter to the state. Individuals do have the right to marry, even if their racial choices aren't something you "approve". Sound familiar?

LlE Buster wrote:
The other thing is when the CSSC to the Prop 22 proponents that it was unconstitutional, the court created the problem, we did not, they violated the law. The law says that they must stay the decision until signatures are gathered for an initiative and is said signatures are gathered then the ballot will decide. Judge Walker tried to do this same crap, but the 9th Circuit said get out of our court and retire, the decision is stayed. If not,more gays would be marrying and then claim disenfranchisement.
Said signatures had already been gathered but not yet submitted and the Court determined that the rights of those betting on the outcome of the question of whether those rights were going to remain in the constitution, didn't outweigh the rights of those individuals whose rights had been violated under the existing unconstitutional law, as it had yet to be determined whether said question was even going to be on the ballot. The Court was under no legal obligation to stay its ruling and the proponents made no efforts to force them to, probably because they still imagined that it was going to be understood as being retroactive to stamp any "marriages" out, just like they did with Newsom. Those "marriages" have proved to be the ultimate undoing of the amendment.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162271 Oct 6, 2012
LlE Buster wrote:
Currently, there should be no states with same sex marriages and the only way it should happen is to ratify the state constitution. Well, as Scalia said, it take 38 states to ratify the US Constitution, we have 32 and need just 6 more.
Under what, for lack of a better word to describe what that hamster is doing on that wheel inside your head, "logic", do you imagine that there should be NO states with same sex marriage? This I gotta hear.

The window of opportunity to pass a federal amendment to stop the inevitable, came and went more than a decade ago. You have conned 31 states into staining their constitutions with such bigotries, but the real question is how many can you keep? California's amendment is toast, the Supremes may not even dignify its passing with a hearing. Three states have a very real shot of granting marriage equality by popular vote and another has the chance to turn down staining their constitution. The much anticipated demise of Section 3 of DOMA declares open season on the states with laws and amendments. You had your chance to continue to oppress us, you lost, get used to it now, avoid the rush.

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
John Root to take over Jerry Deal's seat: Longt... Tue Fiona 1
La Victoria's Orange Sauce (Jan '06) Tue Kay 128
Beam me up Scottie Oct 20 guest 12
From Tower of Power - The Mic Gillette Band Oct 3 IGotSoul 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Sep '14 abusedmom 108
Catalytic Converter Theft. Toyota Truck/SUV own... (May '07) Sep '14 Jesie 950
Daly City Officer Charged With Excessive Force (Aug '06) Aug '14 parmar gangaram 372

Redwood City News Video

Redwood City Dating
Find my Match

Redwood City Jobs

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]