Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,321

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

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181892 Feb 28, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor little Rose, all these years and she still hasn't figured out that it was Skinner v Oklahoma that is the source of marriage as a "right".
Stupid, I wasn't saying anything about source. I just put Loving v VA in quotes because it does state that marriage is a right.
And again, you can't come up with an argument against gay marriage, you just call names. Must suck to high heaven to be you!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181893 Feb 28, 2013
Ooops, not quotes, parentheses.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181894 Feb 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Is stupidity on my level physically painful?
I don't know, why don't you tell us?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181895 Feb 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, I wasn't saying anything about source. I just put Loving v VA in quotes because it does state that marriage is a right.
It sure does, but unlike you when it does so it cites the original source- Skinner v Oklahoma. Something that you like to ignore as it ties marriage and procreation as rights into a nice little bundle.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181896 Feb 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>

And again, you can't come up with an argument against gay marriage.
Why would I you moron, I never said there was one, in fact I have never said a single time in this forum that same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

What I have argued, is that the federal judiciary has no business sticking their nose in it. There is no Constitutional right to marriage, and marriage laws fall under the purview of the STATE. At least that is what the court said when they tossed portions of DOMA, or don't you like that decision anymore?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181897 Feb 28, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know, why don't you tell us?
See, you never come up with an argument.
LOLSER!
already

West Covina, CA

#181898 Feb 28, 2013
get over it

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#181899 Feb 28, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I you moron, I never said there was one, in fact I have never said a single time in this forum that same sex marriage shouldn't be legal.
Then you aren't very good at communicating.
akaidiot wrote:
What I have argued, is that the federal judiciary has no business sticking their nose in it. There is no Constitutional right to marriage, and marriage laws fall under the purview of the STATE. At least that is what the court said when they tossed portions of DOMA, or don't you like that decision anymore?
LOL. Dummy, the 14th Amendment says STATES can't deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That would include marriage laws.(Loving v VA) Must suck to be an idiot like you are.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181900 Feb 28, 2013

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181901 Feb 28, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you aren't very good at communicating.
My communication skills aren't the problem, you comprehension skills are.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
LOL. Dummy, the 14th Amendment says STATES can't deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That would include marriage laws.(Loving v VA) Must suck to be an idiot like you are.
LOL. Dummy, everyone is treated equally- no one is allowed to marry a person of the same sex and everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

We have been through this before Rose, even the court told you that you are an idiot:

"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.[...]
The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the [*12]Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.

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. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id.[emphasis added])...Plaintiffs 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." Hernandez v Robles
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#181902 Feb 28, 2013
Can you imagine the loser who rates Rose_NoHo's posts "Brilliant"?

Anyone?
Dirty Harry

Covina, CA

#181903 Feb 28, 2013
How are the CopperHeads doing tonight
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181904 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If all other laws against polygamy were repealed except PROP 8, that would be the only thing stopping polygamy from being legal in California, X-box.
D
If the queen had balls she'd be king.

If, if, if..... try dealing with what is.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#181906 Feb 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 says marriage is a man and a woman ONLY. Not 2 men and a woman. Not 2 men, not 2 women. It EFFECTIVELY and EQUALLY bans polygamy as well as SSM.
Look Jerky. The bottom line is I support marriage equality and you do not.
Polygamy was already illegaly when Prop 8 was passed. Prop 8 banned same sex marriage.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#181907 Feb 28, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Polygamy was already illegaly when Prop 8 was passed. Prop 8 banned same sex marriage.
Prop 8 banned any marriage save that of one man and one woman.

I thought you wanted to deal with "what is?"

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#181908 Mar 1, 2013
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.

While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181910 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
But it isn't your decision what another couple wants to do, is it?
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181911 Mar 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So when something changes nothing changes?
You really need help.
You think I was saying nothing changes?

You have a vivid imagination.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#181912 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
(Also, the fact that you focus so much on aspects of gay sex really makes me wonder...)

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#181913 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; ..
Is it "gay sex" if lots of straight people do it, and most gay people don't? I believe it's called anal sex.

If you want the government to directly intervene and prevent all anal sex, then wouldn't that apply to straight folks as well? What kind of testing and regulation would you require the government to engage in to deny marriage license to any anal sex practitioners? Who would run it?

Who would pay for it?

And most importantly, who else but you would support it?

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.

South Pasadena Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 28,755
Council rejects Kare offer (Sep '08) 3 hr kyl shts 259
Earthquake could imperil L.A.'s water supply 9 hr squeezers 4
Marco Rubio in 2016! 13 hr Tony 10
A girl waves a Mexican flag during rallies in L... (Mar '06) 13 hr Skew da Poich 4,504
Faking it the green way: Artificial grass looks... (May '09) 20 hr Dr Seuss 21
Off-duty CSULA police officer fatally shoots ar... (Aug '13) Jan 10 COP committed Murder 68

South Pasadena News Video

South Pasadena Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

South Pasadena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:02 pm PST