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
Galaxy

Monrovia, CA

#162272 Oct 6, 2012
Rcick of Kan'ass, get another place to put your poo.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162273 Oct 6, 2012
Couldn't resist the urge.
Brian_G wrote:
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.
That's right kids, it really doesn't matter how hellish the example of heterosexual parenting that the fates cast you into, you can still be thankful you had a mother and father who would do those horrific things to you rather than two parents of the same sex. You got what a real family looks like, if you live, you're better off. Smile and thank us from keeping you away from probably better parents just because we don't like what we fantasize their sex life to be children.
.
Brian_G wrote:
And single parent households are good for society how? Is crime, juvenile delinquency, welfare dependence, uneducated dropouts and violence a social good?
Single parent households are good for society when they produce a better outcome than the two parent household it was or might have been. Yes, on average, the results of single parent parenting doesn't stack up to two parent parenting, but on average doesn't mean in all cases.
.
Brian_G wrote:
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.
You say that as if you actually had a point. There are laws which stop same sex couples from legally considering themselves married or even acting as if they were a legally recognized couple. Those are the laws at issue dear.
.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no justification for redefining marriage.
The reality that it denies us equal protection under the law as supposedly guaranteed to us by our state and federal constitutions is justification for "redefining" marriage.
.
Brian_G wrote:
Our Constitution recognizes freedom of association, it doesn't create any right to define marriage laws for everyone based on sexual predilection.
But isn't that EXACTLY what these laws and amendments do? Create a right to heterosexual only marriage based on what you imagine our sexual predilections to be?
.
Brian_G wrote:
The government has standards, DOMA defines marriage as one man and one woman.
He says in full denial of the multiple court cases which have ruled that said definition is incredibly unconstitutional and is also likely to be shot down this court term.
.
Brian_G wrote:
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.
Just like people had the same right to marry within their approved racial classifications. That argument didn't see well then. The law must offer equal protection and when it comes to the individual's right to marry, the state must prove its interest in denying that right to you. That clearly didn't just happen.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162274 Oct 6, 2012
Galaxy wrote:
Rcick of Kan'ass, get another place to put your poo.
That was just ever so clever of you. Did you think of that all by your little self, or did you have help with such wit? You may not have caught on yet, but everyone else reading this knows I've just found a new place to put my poo. Tag, you're it buttercup.
Haarboored

Monrovia, CA

#162275 Oct 6, 2012
Rciko the sickO, how is it hanging back there?

Have you frozen your lips to something?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162277 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Wow.
Just, Wow.
You really should seek help.

Here, let me help you a little since you are too stupid to do it on your own. You seem to think everything you need to know was given to you in a text book.

The Constitution was drafted to set up a structure of government and enumerate certain powers to said government. When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, one of the biggest issues was the fear that the Federal Government would expand on those powers and attempt to add powers which it did not have control over. This is most evident in the Virginia and New York ratification debates. During the ratification the States demanded that a "Bill of Rights" be added to ensure that it was clear to the Federal Government that those areas were untouchable. If this was not done they would revoke their ratification's and leave the Union. Thus the Bill of Rights was born.

The Constitution in not a list of "right's", it is a structure of government outlining the areas where the Federal Government may exercise control.

The Bill of Rights are specific areas that the States felt it was important to ensure it was clear to the Federal Government they had NO control. The Bill of Rights had no control over the people or the States, this is a new development arsing from the "incorporation doctrine" the SCOTUS has adopted.

Seriously, go educate yourself, you are sounding like a fool.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162278 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Seriously, go educate yourself. You debate like a 2 year old.

You are so ignorant you don't even know what you are debating anymore.

I also suggest you look up the term- straw man- perhaps then you can use it properly.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162279 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
The Constitution doesn't enumerate "right's"
Ha! Amazing.

The single most ignorant statement on the whole of the internet. Congratulations.

Please resist the urge to embarrass yourself further.

Notice how every time you post, a bunch of 'dim bulbs' and 'nuts' start popping up next to your name? That's because you're an moron and everyone here knows it.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162280 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
You debate like a 2 year old.
When dealing with someone so god-damned stupid that they think the bill of RIGHTS doesn't enumerate RIGHTS, I've got to dumb it WAAAAAYYYYY Down.

Funny that you think this is a debate. It's just me laughing at an delusional idiot.

"The Bill of RIGHTS doesn't enumerate Rights"! Wow.

There's no debating such an Earth-shattering level of retardation. You've dropped a Thermonuclear bomb of stupid on yourself. You are sitting in a crater in the center of a blast radius where all hint of intelligent thought, logic, and reason have been destroyed. You have scorched the Earth with your asininity, and nothing is ever going to grow there again.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162281 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha! Amazing.
The single most ignorant statement on the whole of the internet. Congratulations.
Please resist the urge to embarrass yourself further.
Notice how every time you post, a bunch of 'dim bulbs' and 'nuts' start popping up next to your name? That's because you're an moron and everyone here knows it.
I agree, you are one of the most ignorant people here. Are you vying for Roses' title?

I guess you still haven't read the federalist papers?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162282 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>When dealing with someone so god-damned stupid that they think the bill of RIGHTS doesn't enumerate RIGHTS, I've got to dumb it WAAAAAYYYYY Down.
Funny that you think this is a debate. It's just me laughing at an delusional idiot.
"The Bill of RIGHTS doesn't enumerate Rights"! Wow.
There's no debating such an Earth-shattering level of retardation. You've dropped a Thermonuclear bomb of stupid on yourself. You are sitting in a crater in the center of a blast radius where all hint of intelligent thought, logic, and reason have been destroyed. You have scorched the Earth with your asininity, and nothing is ever going to grow there again.
You really do have an elementary level of comprehension don't you?

You have at best a 5th grade comprehension level as to the purpose of the bill of rights.

Have you read the preamble yet?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162283 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>When dealing with someone so god-damned stupid that they think the bill of RIGHTS doesn't enumerate RIGHTS, I've got to dumb it WAAAAAYYYYY Down.
Funny that you think this is a debate. It's just me laughing at an delusional idiot.
"The Bill of RIGHTS doesn't enumerate Rights"! Wow.
There's no debating such an Earth-shattering level of retardation. You've dropped a Thermonuclear bomb of stupid on yourself. You are sitting in a crater in the center of a blast radius where all hint of intelligent thought, logic, and reason have been destroyed. You have scorched the Earth with your asininity, and nothing is ever going to grow there again.
BTW, since you are probably too stupid to use google, here is the relevant portion of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Notice how concerned the founders were with the idea that the POWER of the Federal Government should be limited.

The "Bill of Rights" was drafted to prevent the abuse of POWER of the Federal Government.

Now stop being a child.
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162286 Oct 6, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Have you read the preamble yet?
I've read the Ninth Amendment, moron.

"The ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Damn near verbatim, the exact opposite of your assertions. How can you be SO in denial?
akpilot wrote:
The Constitution doesn't enumerate "right's"
Stick with that, simpleton.

Conveniently, it also addresses your previous delusions that a right has to be specifically enumerated to exist. The Framers saw idiots like you coming over two hundred years ago.

Enough, though. You are FAR too stupid to continue. You're embarrassing yourself to the point where it's becoming more pitiful and pathetic than funny.

This is like beating up on the helmet wearing kids who get off the little bus. They can't help what they are any more than you can. Go ahead and tell yourself that you're clever in the face of all the evidence you've provided us to the contrary. Cling to your delusions and denial. If being a laughing stock gets you through your day, hey, you have that right.

Please resist the urge to explain to us how you don't really have that right. You do. Just accept and exercise it.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#162291 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the Ninth Amendment, moron.
"The ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Damn near verbatim, the exact opposite of your assertions. How can you be SO in denial?
<quoted text>Stick with that, simpleton.
Conveniently, it also addresses your previous delusions that a right has to be specifically enumerated to exist. The Framers saw idiots like you coming over two hundred years ago.
Enough, though. You are FAR too stupid to continue. You're embarrassing yourself to the point where it's becoming more pitiful and pathetic than funny.
This is like beating up on the helmet wearing kids who get off the little bus. They can't help what they are any more than you can. Go ahead and tell yourself that you're clever in the face of all the evidence you've provided us to the contrary. Cling to your delusions and denial. If being a laughing stock gets you through your day, hey, you have that right.
Please resist the urge to explain to us how you don't really have that right. You do. Just accept and exercise it.
Go take a nap Skippy, you're still cranky.
Scarffs

Monrovia, CA

#162292 Oct 6, 2012
Don't fall for the Republican BULL skit.
Kyle Roberts

Ojai, CA

#162293 Oct 6, 2012
Come and Party with us www.flavaconnect.com raise the roof
Frisbee

Renton, WA

#162294 Oct 6, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Go take a nap Skippy, you're still cranky.
Awwwww, look how cute you are.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#162295 Oct 6, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the Ninth Amendment, moron.
"The ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Damn near verbatim, the exact opposite of your assertions. How can you be SO in denial?
<quoted text>Stick with that, simpleton.
Conveniently, it also addresses your previous delusions that a right has to be specifically enumerated to exist. The Framers saw idiots like you coming over two hundred years ago.
Enough, though. You are FAR too stupid to continue. You're embarrassing yourself to the point where it's becoming more pitiful and pathetic than funny.
This is like beating up on the helmet wearing kids who get off the little bus. They can't help what they are any more than you can. Go ahead and tell yourself that you're clever in the face of all the evidence you've provided us to the contrary. Cling to your delusions and denial. If being a laughing stock gets you through your day, hey, you have that right.
Please resist the urge to explain to us how you don't really have that right. You do. Just accept and exercise it.
You have shown that you are really good at cut and paste.

How about you tell us what the 9th Amendment means and why Madison included it?

I won't expect you to get into the entire discussion which would include the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist views as it pertains to the drafting and debate over the bill of rights, that would be too much for you.

You have an elementary level understanding of the Constitution at best. You stand on your playground screaming- Look, look, the Constitution was designed to grant "right's" because it's called the bill of right's. You are a child.

You will never advance beyond that childish understanding unless you educate yourself and apply critical thinking skills. Try reading those documents that I cited for you, it is painfully obvious that you have not.

The Constitution was designed to frame our government and specifically enumerate certain powers. By the enumeration of these limited powers the right's of the people would be secure. The addition of the Bill of Right's was due to the fact that many felt these limited enumerated powers would not be enough, and the government would grow and become limitless. They felt it important to be even more specific in certain areas, including very specific and important areas where the Federal Government was limited, to further ensure the protection of those right's.

Marriage does not fall under the purview of the Federal Government, thus the 9th and 10th Amendment delegate that power to the people and the State.

Now go study, you need it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162296 Oct 6, 2012
Haarboored wrote:
Rciko the sickO, how is it hanging back there?
Have you frozen your lips to something?
Damn, you are just the cleverest little clot, aren't you/ Have you ever thought of writing professionally? Such intelligence, such insight, such wit. We're all honored to be in the presence of such a master. How can I ever possibly respond to such devastating repartee?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#162297 Oct 6, 2012
Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:
You're simply lying, gays lobbied for DADT. When you lie, you get rebuffed.
(rest of post ripped off from: http://conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda )
Buttercup, you just plagiarized an article from Conservapedia. Conservapedia! You should probably just lie down and wait for it all to be over, you're lost and you've lost.
minority rights

Cabot, AR

#162298 Oct 6, 2012
Ok how about because time after time the majority has been wrong. Look at the plight of the American Indian or Blacks, Woman's rights or Religous ones if not the same as the masses .at one time the majority were against all these folks.just because you are in the majority does not make your cause just or right, law are passed and overturned to protect the rights of minorities . its why our system is set up the way it is. trent gatewood

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 ]