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 of199,080
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162257
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

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

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162258
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162259
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

9

7

7

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

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162260
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#162261
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

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

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

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.

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 of199,080
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••