Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,381

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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196242 Jun 15, 2013
Chester Hester wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn Pietro Armando u just got served bro...nice work lides u just totally owned that guy.
Easy there Chester Cheetah.....in the words of Frankie Rizzo, "Relax Fruit loop"!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196243 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy there Chester Cheetah.....in the words of Frankie Rizzo, "Relax Fruit loop"!
LMAO!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#196244 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy there Chester Cheetah.....in the words of Frankie Rizzo, "Relax Fruit loop"!
Thanks a lot, now I'm craving cheetos and fruit loops, and I have neither one here.
Foiled

Monrovia, CA

#196246 Jun 15, 2013
Just more gravel road bed material flying round, when you clowns get your acts together call me and I'll set you straight, again!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196247 Jun 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there a compelling state interest served by confining the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman?
Why yes there is. Is there a compelling state interest in redefining marriage, in calling a came sex personal intimate sexual relationship, marriage? No, there is not.
If not, we simply have 32 states with unconstitutional laws, which will eventually be overturned.
What we have are state constitutions which define marriage as, surprise, a union of one man and one woman.
You are good at pointing towards the existing laws, but you are lousy in defending them.
They stand on their own merits.
No two marriages are the same, pointing out that there are differences
Hellllooooooo....differences? Function and form.
is a far cry from making a valid case against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry.
How can u have equal protection when the form and function are not the same?
Biology will also show you that some of the population is homosexual
That has yet to b conclusively proven. Even so, there's no reason to redefine marriage.
. The constitution will show you that all people are entitled to equal protection of the laws.
Exactly, all men and all women, each able to marry the other sex.

[QUOTE[
At the end of the day, all of your arguments of normalcy, opposite sex couples being different, etc are all irrelevant.
[/QUOTE[

Marriage exists because there r two sexes, come to think of, so do you.
None offers a valid reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
There's no valid reason to call a SSR, legally, marriage.
If you are trying to compare veggie burgers, hamburgers, and marriage, perhaps you need professional help? Ironically veggie burgers ARE still called burgers, as are turkey burgers, buffalo burgers, and even tofu burgers, so even your hypothetical example doesn't really pan out the way you had wanted.
Yet, manufacturers, attempt to create a veggie patty that looks like a hamburger. Hmmmmmm.....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196248 Jun 15, 2013
Rev Ike wrote:
Hey Pietro, you greaseball, if life is so bella how come you're hiding out in a sewer in Detroit?
Nice talk from a man of the cloth. You must b one of those mail order reverends, just like the Reverend Al.
On Time

Monrovia, CA

#196249 Jun 15, 2013
On time, in fact ahead of the dead line, for a change.

California Democrats wrap up the California 2013 - 2014 budget, flex supermajority power.

When ever the idiot Republicans were in control they were months late every time.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196250 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why yes there is. Is there a compelling state interest in redefining marriage, in calling a came sex personal intimate sexual relationship, marriage? No, there is not.
There need not be a state interest to grant the right to marry or "redefine" marriage. A state interest comes up when a state tried to deny a right. It is part of the judicial level of review called strict scrutiny. You've just aired your ignorance of the law once again.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What we have are state constitutions which define marriage as, surprise, a union of one man and one woman.
And, unless restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman serves a compelling state interest, those constitutional provisions are unconstitutional under the federal constitution. This isn't a difficult concept.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They stand on their own merits.
They have no merits, and they are in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hellllooooooo....differences? Function and form.
Neither of which rises to the level of a compelling state interest. Does the marriage of an infertile heterosexual couple equal that of a fertile heterosexual couple? Your point is disingenuous at best.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How can u have equal protection when the form and function are not the same?
Simple, it isn't about outcomes, it is about protection of the law. You seem to be confusing this simple issue.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That has yet to b conclusively proven. Even so, there's no reason to redefine marriage.
There aren't gay people? It's pretty much a fact that gay people exist, kiddo.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly, all men and all women, each able to marry the other sex.
You've yet to offer any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Personally, I think you are incapable of offing any such interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's no valid reason to call a SSR, legally, marriage.
Sure there is, namely to fulfill the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
I wonder what you are going to do later this month when the US Supreme Court rules against your position?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet, manufacturers, attempt to create a veggie patty that looks like a hamburger. Hmmmmmm.....
And they market it as a burger. Your argument on this point was utterly inept. Then again, all of your arguments are utterly inept, and unsupported by fact, law, or reason.
In the mean time

Monrovia, CA

#196251 Jun 15, 2013
U.S. waterways contain traces of drugs such as Prozac, which arrive there through human excreta.

Research shows that at higher levels of exposure, the male fish kill the female fish and the female fish stop producing eggs.

Exposure of young minnows to the drug alters their genes and brain 'architecture'
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196252 Jun 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. So SHUDDUP Creep! I'll give you a little squirt.
Just so you know you are a little aquirt ... LMAO
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196253 Jun 15, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Just so you know you are a little aquirt ... LMAO
WTF is an "aquirt" you illiterate moron?... LMAO

YUK!YUK!YUK! Illiterate moron. Too funny!
In the mean time

Monrovia, CA

#196254 Jun 15, 2013
Just after the cheap and easy criminals from North Korea dashed talks with South Korea over a trivial issue, now they want to have high level talks with the USA.

North Korea has lost face with South Korea, the little criminals in the North had better get there house in order, the South is not a easy push over.

If the south wanted they could clean the North's clock and be back home for dinner the same day!

North Korea should be made to apologize to both the South Korean's and American governments as well as the world.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#196257 Jun 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
There need not be a state interest to grant the right to marry or "redefine" marriage. A state interest comes up when a state tried to deny a right. It is part of the judicial level of review called strict scrutiny. You've just aired your ignorance of the law once again.
<quoted text>
And, unless restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman serves a compelling state interest, those constitutional provisions are unconstitutional under the federal constitution. This isn't a difficult concept.
<quoted text>
They have no merits, and they are in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
<quoted text>
Neither of which rises to the level of a compelling state interest. Does the marriage of an infertile heterosexual couple equal that of a fertile heterosexual couple? Your point is disingenuous at best.
<quoted text>
Simple, it isn't about outcomes, it is about protection of the law. You seem to be confusing this simple issue.
<quoted text>
There aren't gay people? It's pretty much a fact that gay people exist, kiddo.
<quoted text>
You've yet to offer any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Personally, I think you are incapable of offing any such interest.
<quoted text>
Sure there is, namely to fulfill the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
I wonder what you are going to do later this month when the US Supreme Court rules against your position?
<quoted text>
And they market it as a burger. Your argument on this point was utterly inept. Then again, all of your arguments are utterly inept, and unsupported by fact, law, or reason.
I gotta say I have no horse in this race. I'm not gay, but I do like to see some of the debates on this thread. Pietro Armando u have to admit, at least on some level, that you're getting totally owned by this guy. He's making u look pretty bad son, and you're exposing yourself as an ignorant bigot. I know people who hide behind their computers rarely, if ever, admit defeat...but dude come on, he's waxing the floor with u.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#196258 Jun 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Even same sex atheists! Like three hot young twinks as long as they're consenting adults! Hubba Hubba! Bet you like equality for them even if you don't like it for people you hate.
But keep your lurid sexual fantasies out of this. We're trying to talk marriage equality.
Dude, why do you assume I was talking about gay men. When you talk of polygamists, its always a man having multiple wives....

my question was, can a woman have multiple husbands....

your bigotry is showing

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196259 Jun 15, 2013
Jayzbird58 Buster wrote:
<quoted text>You really are confused, but that is okay, it is conditional.
Yes, there is no compelling state interest in redefining marriage to include same sex unions.
Actually, the 14th Amendment has already been upheld to defend the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
Actually, there are no gay people, just humans who choose to have varies forms of sex, such as with the same sex, children and animals.
In order to make an argument of denying same sex marriages, you must go back to the point in the US where it existed then it was taken away.
Calling Chester Cheetah...your friend lides has just been served. Owned by Jayzbird58 Buster.
Not To Bright Are You

Toronto, Canada

#196260 Jun 15, 2013
Jayzbird58 Buster wrote:
<quoted text>You really are confused, but that is okay, it is conditional.
Yes, there is no compelling state interest in redefining marriage to include same sex unions.
Actually, the 14th Amendment has already been upheld to defend the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
Actually, there are no gay people, just humans who choose to have varies forms of sex, such as with the same sex, children and animals.
In order to make an argument of denying same sex marriages, you must go back to the point in the US where it existed then it was taken away.
And that state is and was California! The right to marry was given legally and then taken away! That is until most likely next week when the Supreme court will once and for all restore that right forever! Not to bright are you sport?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196261 Jun 15, 2013
Chester Hester wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks a lot, now I'm craving cheetos and fruit loops, and I have neither one here.
Got the munches? You not involved with Mary Jane, are you?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196262 Jun 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, why do you assume I was talking about gay men. When you talk of polygamists, its always a man having multiple wives....
my question was, can a woman have multiple husbands....
your bigotry is showing
And I answered your question dummy but you're slow so I'll do it again. Of course she can!(Your paranoia is showing.)

Good that you asked for help. Remember! There are no dumb posts. Only dumb-asses such as yourself.

P.S. I support marriage equality and you do not. Who's the bigot?

OK Fruitloops. Hope that helped.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196263 Jun 15, 2013
Not To Bright Are You wrote:
<quoted text>
And that state is and was California! The right to marry was given legally and then taken away! That is until most likely next week when the Supreme court will once and for all restore that right forever! Not to bright are you sport?
It never should have been given in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Propo... (2000)

Prior to 1977, marriage was defined in Section 4100 of the California Civil Code. This stated that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary".[4] While related sections of the law made references to sex, a State Assembly committee that was debating adding sex-specific terms to this section in 1977 noted: "Under existing law it is not clear whether partners of the same sex can get married".[5] That year, the legislature amended the legal definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity. In 1992 the legal definition of marriage was moved from the Civil Code to Section 300 of the Family Code.
When Proposition 22 came before voters, marriage was defined in the Family Code as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary" [italics added].[6]
Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, Section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere. This stated that a "marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state".[7] Advocates of Proposition 22 described Section 308 as a "loophole", apparently forcing California to recognize a same-sex marriage validly contracted in some other state.[8]
To address this, Proposition 22 did not reword the existing provisions of the Family Code, but added to them the declaration that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".[9] The official citation of Proposition 22, the "California Defense of Marriage Act", is almost the same as that of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1996. This federal law had a similar purpose, and was intended to prevent any state from being obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another state.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196264 Jun 15, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, why do you assume I was talking about gay men. When you talk of polygamists, its always a man having multiple wives....
That would be polygyny. Along with monogamy, the most common form of marriage throughout human history.
my question was, can a woman have multiple husbands....
That would be polyandry. Rather rare among human societies. Of those that did, or do practice it, it's common for brothers to marry one woman. That way any children born are related to the other men.
How many women would actually want more than one husband? Oh her aching back.
your bigotry is showing
As is your ignorance. But ya learn something new everyday.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
22 gay rights activists protesting in Idaho Hou... 3 min Belle Sexton 1
Officer in gay pride parade incident speaks out 5 min Wondering 68
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 6 min Rick Perry s Closet 121
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min NoahLovesU 15,588
Transgender Bruce Jenner will be lesbian after ... 7 min Wondering 119
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 20 min Frankie Rizzo 3,222
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 22 min reality 57,872
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 5 hr lides 1,103
More from around the web