Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,317

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
Global

La Puente, CA

#185156 Mar 28, 2013
No need to thank me your silence is enough.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185157 Mar 28, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
pot, meet kettle.
look, read the transcripts of the trials. read the findings. you'll see, maybe not understand, the applicability.
gee, looks like you failed to properly inform your side's chuckie with all your vast knowledge. that, or he chose to ignore you - some nutjob internet stranger that you are.
can you hear that last wheezing breaths your side is taking pal? press your little ear up harder to the door and you won't miss it. they're dieing off due to lack of oxygen.
good luck.
83% of people UNDER 30 approve of your right to get married and enjoy all the advantages(or bummers) that could include.

52% of rethuglicans UNDER 30 support gay marraige.

those still clutching this dying philosophy, will indeed be a dying breed from now on....

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#185158 Mar 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, those were done by people who were looking forward, not back
thank you for making my point.
Of course we look at the past, but we don’t glorify it, we don’t say that if something was true before, it has to be true now and in the future. We did exactly the opposite in every example you gave, by people that looked to a bright future, rather than wishing for some non-existent "gold old days"
You have trouble with critical thinking don't you?

Forward thinking? Our discussion has nothing to do with your meaningless buz words.

Each and every one of those changes went through the proper process as set forth in Article V. That is looking to and understanding the past. Today we want to completely ignore the Constitution unless we can twist and mangle it into some new form that was never intended. To expedite the process we ignore Article V, that's simply too much work, and circumvent the Constitution by running to any court that will "rule" that the Constitution says something it doesn't, then we claim it's Constitutional.

This is a product of this "living breathing" nonsense. The Constitution is the law, it does not change with social whims or public opinion. The ONLY way it changes is through the Amendment process set forth in Article V. This process was meant to be difficult and time cosuming to prevent quick and ill thought public opinionated whims from becoming law.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#185159 Mar 28, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
perfect!!
you bring up the 17th amendment, and then I tell the everyone what is in it??
and you call me an idiot??
you sound like youd feel right at home at a "town hall meeting" that wasnt open to the public.
michigans actions are racist, and the party at large will not "graduate" the twentieth century, until they stop trying to keep black people from voting!!
these sort of action seem to backfire, see 1965, and 2012.
You're an idiot. You are ill equiped to educate anyone.

You still have no idea why the Senate was not designed to be elected by the general populous, and rather than go an educate yourself on the topic you immediately reply with more of your ignorant ranting.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185160 Mar 28, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You have trouble with critical thinking don't you?
Forward thinking? Our discussion has nothing to do with your meaningless buz words.
Each and every one of those changes went through the proper process as set forth in Article V. That is looking to and understanding the past. Today we want to completely ignore the Constitution unless we can twist and mangle it into some new form that was never intended. To expedite the process we ignore Article V, that's simply too much work, and circumvent the Constitution by running to any court that will "rule" that the Constitution says something it doesn't, then we claim it's Constitutional.
This is a product of this "living breathing" nonsense. The Constitution is the law, it does not change with social whims or public opinion. The ONLY way it changes is through the Amendment process set forth in Article V. This process was meant to be difficult and time cosuming to prevent quick and ill thought public opinionated whims from becoming law.
that is the problem you guys cannot get over....

that we ALL have to follow some sort of invisible religious "common sense"

most of us think this is nonsense.

these are called 'religious beliefs" and the cobstituiton does indeed provide for a separation of church and state....in fact it is stated in the pre-amble.

public opinion does indeed drive the court......it is the whole reason this issue is coming to bear right now, you fool.

..........public support has gone from 23% to 58%.

why are you so simple??

go back to school, if you even believe in school.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185161 Mar 28, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot. You are ill equiped to educate anyone.
You still have no idea why the Senate was not designed to be elected by the general populous, and rather than go an educate yourself on the topic you immediately reply with more of your ignorant ranting.
Im getting the picture....

you like the original version of the constitution the best...

the one without all those pesky additions that came later.

if we left you guys alone on a date with the constitution??

we WOULD NOT get back anything recognizable.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185162 Mar 28, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You have trouble with critical thinking don't you?
Forward thinking? Our discussion has nothing to do with your meaningless buz words.
Each and every one of those changes went through the proper process as set forth in Article V. That is looking to and understanding the past. Today we want to completely ignore the Constitution unless we can twist and mangle it into some new form that was never intended. To expedite the process we ignore Article V, that's simply too much work, and circumvent the Constitution by running to any court that will "rule" that the Constitution says something it doesn't, then we claim it's Constitutional.
This is a product of this "living breathing" nonsense. The Constitution is the law, it does not change with social whims or public opinion. The ONLY way it changes is through the Amendment process set forth in Article V. This process was meant to be difficult and time cosuming to prevent quick and ill thought public opinionated whims from becoming law.
Our founders disagreed with you, and created it as a document that could be changed and has been changed quite a number of times.

Yes it is meant to be difficult and time consuming and I think that is a good thing as well.

There are dramatic changes to that document, ones some of our founders would not have even imagined.

Some were mistakes, and reversed later

There is no question, it is an excellent document, and its power comes from the fact that it is a changeable document over the years.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#185163 Mar 28, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
that is the problem you guys cannot get over....
that we ALL have to follow some sort of invisible religious "common sense"
most of us think this is nonsense.
these are called 'religious beliefs" and the cobstituiton does indeed provide for a separation of church and state....in fact it is stated in the pre-amble.
public opinion does indeed drive the court......it is the whole reason this issue is coming to bear right now, you fool.
..........public support has gone from 23% to 58%.
why are you so simple??
go back to school, if you even believe in school.
WTF are you talking about?

Are you having a conversation with me or the voices in your head?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#185164 Mar 28, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>there are also things i like about it.....

either way???

you guys are not winning the presidncy for a LONG LONG time...

frankly, until you get on the right side of history, realize this is a VERY diverse country(not just diverse amongst white folk)

and become a party of INCLUSION instead of what i see presently, which is a party of exclusion, you are not going to be anything but a curiousity of the past, or in other words.......a relic.

as far as im concerned, those of you have hijacked your party(to the far right), can keep hijacking it until kingdom come.
Be careful what you say. Our politics swing like a pendulum. Eventually the "other" party takes over. It isn't because the "other" party has come up with a spectacular solution for the problems at hand, it is because the one with the most power has done such a spectactular job of disappointing us.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185165 Mar 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am indeed disappointed in Obama for not un-doing the republican created disasters faster than he did.( and in some cases still has not done )
It's fools like you that hold back this country fighting for one party and blaming one party for all the problems. And not seeing the damage from your own party lines.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#185166 Mar 28, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Our founders disagreed with you, and created it as a document that could be changed and has been changed quite a number of times.
Yes it is meant to be difficult and time consuming and I think that is a good thing as well.
There are dramatic changes to that document, ones some of our founders would not have even imagined.
Some were mistakes, and reversed later
There is no question, it is an excellent document, and its power comes from the fact that it is a changeable document over the years.
The founders didn't disagree, they wrote Article V.

The problem is you don't want to use the process, you want to bypass the Amendment process and the States and simply use the court.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#185167 Mar 28, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do the D's keep repeating history?
Because they're really no different from the Rs in this respect.
DemoRats do not inhale

Windsor, CT

#185168 Mar 28, 2013
The Democrats and the birth of American imperialism
I want to take this occasion to say that the United States will never again seek one additional foot of territory by conquest.
—Woodrow Wilson, 19133
Democratic President Woodrow Wilson’s rationale for modern imperialism, in which “the flag follows commerce,” contained no lofty appeals to freedom and democracy:
Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.4
Wilson wrote these words just after the Spanish-American War that began in 1898, which launched the U.S. as an imperial contender. A “splendid little war”—as the New York papers dubbed it—during which Cuba became a sugar colony of the U.S., Puerto Rico began its long history as a U.S.“protectorate,” and 8 million Filipinos were subjected to brutalities beginning the very day that Rudyard Kipling published his poem calling upon the U.S. to “Take up the White Man’s burden.”5
Wilson, the mild-mannered professor from Princeton who opposed women’s suffrage, established a reputation for warmongering and brutality that was to become a hallmark of Democratic Party foreign policy. He intervened in more countries where he stationed troops for longer periods of time than had the previous Republican administrations of Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft combined.
Aside from dispatching troops to Europe in the waning years of the First World War, Wilson’s presidency exercised “gunboat diplomacy,” sending in the marines to Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, the Soviet Union, Honduras, China, and Guatemala. The raid on Haiti, where U.S. troops remained for 19 years, is instructive as to the ways of Democratic methods. When National City Bank in New York insisted that the Haitian customhouses relinquish a hefty amount of the only existing reserves of Haitian capital, they refused. American troops landed at Port au Prince in December 1914 and stole $500,000 that they then loaded onto their gunship and deposited in the vaults of National City Bank. After a series of uprisings that ended in the assassination of the Haitian president, U.S. troops launched a full-blown occupation, killed thousands who resisted, disbanded the Haitian military, trained a puppet force under direct leadership of U.S. officers, and built the infrastructure necessary to turn Haiti into the haven for cheap labor that it remains today. he Nation reported that,“Those who protested or resisted were beaten into submissionÖ.Those attempting to escape were shot.”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#185169 Mar 28, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
Im getting the picture....
you like the original version of the constitution the best...
the one without all those pesky additions that came later.
if we left you guys alone on a date with the constitution??
we WOULD NOT get back anything recognizable.
You are a lost cause, and you hardly- "get the picture"

Based on your incoherant posts with all your disconnected thought's I'm not even sure you understand your own position let alone that of another.

You should put the bong down for a bit and let the fog clear.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185170 Mar 28, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>

public opinion does indeed drive the court.....
the justices’ voting
behavior is largely a product of their own ideological pref-
erences.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185171 Mar 28, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Be careful what you say. Our politics swing like a pendulum. Eventually the "other" party takes over. It isn't because the "other" party has come up with a spectacular solution for the problems at hand, it is because the one with the most power has done such a spectactular job of disappointing us.
I agree, they take turns, every 8 years.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185172 Mar 28, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
Im getting the picture....
It's a sad picture of you being taken away again.
Marriagemoney

Saint Augustine, FL

#185173 Mar 28, 2013
It's about money not marriage. Single people dont't receive financial breaks for being single. It's always about the greenbacks.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185174 Mar 28, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>But according to hemp head, you are a bigot for comparing gay lifestyles to animals.
Did I ever talk to Hemp Head? I think you're just trying to stir things up. Probably not a good idea.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185175 Mar 28, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text> the justices’ voting
behavior is largely a product of their own ideological pref-
erences.
lets be clear....

the attourney argueing FOR DOMA, admitted in open court, that the intent of DOMA was bigoted, with bigotry written in(by way of religion)

didnt you listen to the tapes??

sheesh, and to think i actaully reply to your posts!!

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.

The Mission Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Black men disrespected in Mayor Ed Lee's State ... Jan 23 nineinchwonder 3
San Francisco celebrates gay marriage rulings (Jun '13) Jan 23 Gay and know better 4
S.F. Comedy fest to feature 'Weird Al' tribute Jan 19 Marcavage s Trick 2
'I moved from Brooklyn to San Francisco for thi... Jan 11 Frost quakes 1
Are we dumping the homeless? Dec '14 Mike 4
San Francisco weighs ban on new head shops (Feb '09) Nov '14 Pasha_Poi_kid 28
Up Your Alley - Folsom Street Fair - Naked Bodi... (Jul '08) Oct '14 giddy up 20

The Mission News Video

San Francisco Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

The Mission People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:37 am PST