Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 7,160)

Showing posts 143,181 - 143,200 of200,198
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162263
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162264
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

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

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162265
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162266
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

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

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162267
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

This is too easy.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162268
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

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

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162269
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Too bad the cage door is open.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162270
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162271
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.
Galaxy

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162272
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

9

9

7

Rcick of Kan'ass, get another place to put your poo.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162273
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162274
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

6

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

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162275
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Rciko the sickO, how is it hanging back there?

Have you frozen your lips to something?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162277
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162278
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

9

7

6

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

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162279
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162280
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162281
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162282
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162283
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 143,181 - 143,200 of200,198
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 News Video

•••
•••

Redwood City Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••