Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201851 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190697 May 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
May? He is talking about 7 other than the ones with bans currently in place, he is counting on California legislature agreeing with such a measure LOL and Nevada... saying he only needs 7 is a joke, he won’t even get the current 31 that have bans in place ... and some of those bans won’t be in place for long, that 31 is a declining number.
Is there a place we can put down a wager on that not happening?
( chuckle )
It is a pipe dream for him, but just a joke, it doesn’t have the support to pass
To be honest I don't think many on here have a true understanding of AK's position. Yeah, I know, he throws out insults at most here who don't agree with his ideas, but that isn't unique to him or to either side of the debate. I do not really think he's opposed to same sex couples gaining access to marriage. Not at all. What he's not in favor of are end runs and legal gymnastics getting around democratic approaches. I believe he sees it as a state's rights issue more than a federal one.

He makes a few good points on matters but it appears, to me anyway, that the intent behind them isn't received. If I tell you that by stepping off the curb in heavy traffic that there is a good chance you'll get hit, it is not the same as stating I want you to get hit. Ergo the warning about mandates handed down through the judiciary while many aren't ready to accept them may lead to quite the backlash. There are some fairly conservative areas in many states that have good resources and are quite capable of influencing outcomes both in legislative actions and elections.

What is better? Acceptance through force or through enlightenment?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190698 May 1, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You make that statement as though anyone in American as the right to vote on others rights. Besides, you assume all the ignorant haters who voted against other American’s rights will be alive or able to do the same in the future. If you weren’t such an arrogant, self-important windbag you might pause long enough to realize that. The USA is changing whether you like it or not. And there will be Gay Marriage Rights in all 50 states whether you “vote” for it or it gets jammed down your throat. Pontificate on that douche bag.
Americans voted to maintain the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. That's it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190699 May 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And the name is what they fear... they are frightened half to death.. by a word.
The name does not belong to them, any religions and non-religious use the same word, that word is not their personal property, and from a recognition perspective, it is a legal term.
Yes a legal term which as a specific meaning, at least in 32 states, of marriage as a union of husband and wife. Why is that so troubling, or difficult to comprehend?
Our laws are applied equally ( or are supposed to be ) regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin.
Great, mandate health insurance companies pay for prostate exams for women. The law should be applied equally. Also require, by law, every women's rest room/locker room have the same number of urinals as every men's room/locker room. Equal is equal.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190700 May 1, 2013
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't use the word Monster, why monster? are we living in an anime. Mutation?, may be, but really I think diversity, genetic rarity. Monster has obvious negative implications and mutation, well were you born with regular DNA then something happened to change it. You've said chimera, I'm thinking this is what I call mosaic: a variable mix of XX and XY in any given sample. If that's the case then why use the term monster mutation, other than for dramatic effect. Well, you have the right to call yourself what you like, I was questioning the mental health of it, but then if you're happy I suppose it doesn't matter. Personally I call myself Intersexed with a genetic mosaic.
All of this^^^ is exactly why I think KiMare is overladen with bovine excretia. He is either uninformed and a chimera or he's uninformed. My thoughts are that if he were actually a chimera he'd know enough about the term to not make such mistakes. Therefore, it appears to me that he's a bit of an ill informed liar.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190701 May 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
-George Carlin
Yeah yeah, off topic but so much better than Big D's dopey bluster.
George Carlin is one of my favorites. Funny as hell and on the mark about reality. RIP

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190702 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans voted to maintain the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. That's it.
We did? When was that?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190703 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes a legal term which as a specific meaning, at least in 32 states, of marriage as a union of husband and wife. Why is that so troubling, or difficult to comprehend?
<quoted text>
Great, mandate health insurance companies pay for prostate exams for women. The law should be applied equally. Also require, by law, every women's rest room/locker room have the same number of urinals as every men's room/locker room. Equal is equal.
Yes 32 and dropping, we know, California is about to reverse, likely this year, as is Nevada shortly thereafter as both he legislature and now even the voting population are opposed to their ban, probably followed by Oregon in a year or so, the challenge is already underway there. That will bring your number down to 29 and still dropping

There is nothing that is difficult to comprehend, more and more states are joining ranks in recognizing same sex marriage, Delaware, Rode Island, Pennsylvania will have full recognition shortly and states that have bans are being challenged now, after the SC rules on DOMA federal recognition will also be in place.

Not sure why you can’t comprehend that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190704 May 1, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
We did? When was that?
Californians did it twice in 2000 and 2008. It was in all the papers.
Spot

Covina, CA

#190705 May 1, 2013
Freckle's are better for you.
charlie

Sweden

#190706 May 1, 2013
all i do is win
Howdy

Irving, TX

#190707 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans voted to maintain the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. That's it.
Private American citizens do not vote on Federal Amendments to the Constitution.

That's it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190708 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Californians did it twice in 2000 and 2008. It was in all the papers.
And they will vote on it again if the Supreme Court does not uphold the overturn of Prop 8, and all polls now show Prop 8 now being soundly defeated.

It is just a matter of time, justice will prevail.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190709 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Californians did it twice in 2000 and 2008. It was in all the papers.
Yeah, I know Californians did, but the rest of us haven't. You should try being more specific in the future.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190710 May 1, 2013
Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
Private American citizens do not vote on Federal Amendments to the Constitution.
That's it.
Howdy.........Doody

What about general Americans? Some where along the way Americans voted. At least at the state level.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190711 May 1, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I know Californians did, but the rest of us haven't. You should try being more specific in the future.
Yes, my bad....citizens in 32 states maybe?
Howdy

Irving, TX

#190712 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Howdy.........Doody
What about general Americans? Some where along the way Americans voted. At least at the state level.
States can put into place any law they deem necessary. However, if that law (or state constitutional amendment) is found to be contrary to the U.S. Constitution, then those laws or state amendments are declared as "Unconstitutional". As in Prop 8 in California.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190713 May 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And they will vote on it again if the Supreme Court does not uphold the overturn of Prop 8, and all polls now show Prop 8 now being soundly defeated.
Will they? Opinion polls and voting polls don't always mesh.
It is just a matter of time, justice will prevail.
Don't forget truth and the American way Super D.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190714 May 1, 2013
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-...

A federal trial court ruled that Nevada can limit marriage to opposite-sex couples in a ruling made public hours before the Supreme Court is due to consider whether it will hear any of several cases addressing same-sex couples' marriage rights.

Judge Robert C. Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, found that the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not "[prohibit] the People of the State of Nevada from maintaining statutes that reserve the institution of civil marriage to one-man–one-woman relationships."

Jones ruled that a prior Supreme Court precedent — a 1972 case, Baker v. Nelson, that denied a same-sex couple's marriage claim as lacking any "substantial federal question" — controlled his decision. Even if not, he ruled that the "exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage" was constitutional "[b]ecause the maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman is a legitimate state interest."

In reaching his decision, Jones found that a classification like Nevada's marriage law, which distinguishes between heterosexual and homosexual people (his analysis did not address bisexuality), should not be viewed with additional scrutiny, as are laws that distinguish based on sex or race. The analysis, made as part of challenges claiming a violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantees, asks whether the group claiming discrimination under the law has experienced a history of discrimination and continues to face levels of political powerlessness

.
Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
States can put into place any law they deem necessary. However, if that law (or state constitutional amendment) is found to be contrary to the U.S. Constitution, then those laws or state amendments are declared as "Unconstitutional". As in Prop 8 in California.
True, and different judges can interpret the Constitution differently, as we have seen with this issue.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190715 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Will they? Opinion polls and voting polls don't always mesh.
<quoted text>
Don't forget truth and the American way Super D.
Not when the pollsters are biased, we saw that with Faux news in the last election.

However I am talking about a spread of polls different sources

You can hope... hope is about all you have left
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190716 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, my bad....citizens in 32 states maybe?
No it is the state legislatures that have to sign off on amendments and you are counting on California as one of your precious 32?

Think again

But it doesn’t matter anyway, republicans are switching sides on the issue now, in droves, if held today, a vote would kill Prop 8 in California, in Nevada as well

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Contra Costa Times/Oakland Tribune editorial: M... 4 hr Jodyshouse 1
News The Carvery in Downtown Livermore Closes (Nov '13) Jul 24 Ssophiiee 9
News A Google Self-Driving Car Is Hit from Behind, L... Jul 24 glasspilot 2
News USGS scientist sets record straight: No evidenc... Jul 23 sure 1
Garage Sale 1220 Fernside Saturday 7/25 8:00am Jul 23 jmcdonald 1
News Former Santa Cruz mayor, husband, sued for sexu... Jul 22 anon 10
Does anyone know Jon Scottie Clarke......a prop... Jun '15 scottie clarke 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palo Alto Mortgages