Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
If there is no federal question, then what the fuck is DOMA???? The Prop 8 case has SUBSTANTIAL differences from Baker. What the Court used as precedent is the ROMER descision, but y'all don't like to be reminded of that. SCOTUS heard THAT case and overturned Colorado's pathetic attempt to disenfranchise its gay citizens.

DOMA was a federal law, not a State law, the SCOTUS has jurisdiction. Are you really this clueless?

Prop 8 is a State issue, there is no federal question. Stop acting like you know the law because you watch Judge Judy.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the Court disagrees with your simple-minded assessment, but don't let that stop you.

You still fail to support your arguments. Seriously, you debate like a 4 year old.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Expalin DOMA?.... I think UNCONSTITUTIONAL covers it.

Yes, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, for the reasons the court stated- There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to define marriage.

This lack of authority is the same reason why the Federal Judiciary cannot rule this matter in California. The Constitution does not give them the authority to define marriage, thus it is a matter for the States. Try reading the 10th Amendment.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know what species YOU are, but humans don't need a piece of paper to reproduce...and I'm sure Justice Kagan learned that simple fact a very long time ago.

More insults from Mona, this happens a lot when she cannot come up with anything intelligent to say. This is most of the time.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
You do know that President Obama believes in Full Marriage Equality, right? He has since he was a new Senator in Illinois back in 1996........and just because he stated he wasn't because of his wanting to be President, hasn't really changed his beliefs........in fact, he is evolving his viewpoint.......are you?

You keep telling yourself that. Obama doesn't give a damn about you, only your vote. He will tell you anything you want to hear to get it.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting that procreation is a fundamental right, but marriage is a privilege.

Isn't it? So long as we allow the State to license it, it most certainly is a privilege. There are many groups which are excluded from the "right" of marriage, one cannot have a fundamental right where there is exclusion.

The Lady Doctor wrote:

<quoted text>So, you are against all forms of life support systems, and you would kill all Alzheimer's parents. Stop the BS, this is not about the mother's health or rape victims. Abortion is illegal, the law decides when it is allowable, period. If the law already regulates when, it can be specific for rape and mother's health. Now what?
The truth is, a baby takes its form at 6 weeks, the heart beats, the hands and feet form, and it has eyes, etc. Abortion is murder, because the doctor does not just remove the baby, they kill it, by ringing the neck and ripping it to threads. If it were not life, then why ring the neck and kill it. There have been many cases were did practice was not followed and the baby survived, and that is why the doctors are specific to murder the baby.

Abortion is illegal? Really?
As far as taking its form at 6 weeks, yes, but it isn't anywhere near complete and it doesn't have any congitive function. There is no communication between systems, the CNS isn't functioning as a unit nor is it complete, especially at the higher centers. The dismemberment methods you describe aren't something the fetus senses at a cerebral level. As mentioned, the CNS isn't finished and it isn't hooked up. For you to understand what I'm getting at think of a neuro exam for a patient that has a severed spinal cord. Complete separation abolishes any conscious pain perception. However, a pin prick to a toe will get a withdrawal reflex. That occurs at the level of the spinal cord.

There are also non surgical methods available that simply cause a miscarriage.

The reason that they dismember during an abortion isn't so much to kill as to remove. The cervix is closed and this dictates a need for smaller instruments to be inserted vaginally. They don't "ring" the fetus' neck. They simply use a curretage tool to suck it out. The tip is sharp and does the dismembering.

You've been watching a bit too much pro-life propaganda.

Conservative Democrat wrote:

Brian, what's the G for; gullible?

Gomer?

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>You brought them up, why? Are you part of them giving them more publicity?

For love of Pete, you're not too bright are you? I told you "why" in the post you quoted with the above idiotic reply. I just didn't spell it out for you. The answer was there in black and white and anyone with more than one synapse would have seen it.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
EXACTLY. It can be taught!
Indeed we need no papers to reproduce, it is a right we hold outside of any govt form...
now factor how we APPLY for a marriage LICENSE...
you're getting there...(sans any SUPPORT beyond your feelings).
So we have the Loving case saying fundamental right to marry and Kagan, well aware of that case saying "no federal right to GAY marriage". Again, how can you jibe that, except that there is no right to gay marriage as it is one apart from procreation.
See how that all works logically, human right to reproduce PROTECTED, Marriage alone, NOT PROTECTED, marriage as linked to procreation PROTECTED.
I know you want to pass this all off as bigotry, but it is actually legal REALITY. AGAIN did you READ the 9th circuit decision, its all there...its why they chose EP and not FUNDAMENTAL rights analysis!
But this has been explained to you time and time again, why do you IGNORE reality and replace it with your feelings?

No, I DON'T see how that works logically and neither do you. "no right to gay marriage as it is one apart from procreation." WTF does that mean? "marriage alone not protected, marriage linked to procreation protected?" Are you having a stroke? Where the hell did you go to Law School? Get your money back.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, for the reasons the court stated- There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to define marriage.
This lack of authority is the same reason why the Federal Judiciary cannot rule this matter in California. The Constitution does not give them the authority to define marriage, thus it is a matter for the States. Try reading the 10th Amendment.

Perhaps you should notify the 9th Circuit Court of their error. I'm so sure you know better than the actual Judges..... NOT.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
DOMA was a federal law, not a State law, the SCOTUS has jurisdiction. Are you really this clueless?
Prop 8 is a State issue, there is no federal question. Stop acting like you know the law because you watch Judge Judy.

Oh puh-leez. I'm not going to serve as your whipping post today. Your reading comprehension SUCKS FOR AIR. SCOTUS refused to hear Baker because of a lack of a Federal question. Because of DOMA, that has changed.

Where did you get the stupid idea that States can pass whatever discriminatory law they like without Federal Intervention? And spare me your pipe dreams about "that's not the way the founders blah, blah, blah..." Federal Courts intervene in States affairs ALL THE TIME. They will continue to do so because they don't care about your silly theories.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You still fail to support your arguments. Seriously, you debate like a 4 year old.

...yawn...

And you debate like a parrot.

SQUAWK! the founders SQUAWK!

SQUAWK! the 10th Amendment SQUAWK!

SQUAWK! I'm right and the entire judicial system is wrong! SQUAWK!

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps you should notify the 9th Circuit Court of their error. I'm so sure you know better than the actual Judges..... NOT.

The paid off liberal judges who commit high crimes for over turning the will of the majority? You know a Republic?
Is that the court you're talking about???
You obviously have NO idea just how corrupt the U S courts are! And you better hope that you never have to find out! It's NO fun watching lawyers and judges lying and destroying people!
It really sucks!

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
...yawn...
And you debate like a parrot.
SQUAWK! the founders SQUAWK!
SQUAWK! the 10th Amendment SQUAWK!
SQUAWK! I'm right and the entire judicial system is wrong! SQUAWK!

Stupid is, as liberal says / posts!!!
That time of the month mona lotta??? LMAO Take a pill!

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>mentioned compared to a command. We are commanded to Love, we are not commanded to be violent. What is your point? Did I say the wrong thing to Godhatesfags by saying God is Love? Are you against me or my argument?

I pretty sure the bible has a lot of commands from it's god to do voilent acts, unless you think killing all in some city, or killing someone for breaking one of the laws, not a voilent act. I'm referring to him commanding biblical heros, or just his followers to do the killing, not the story of the flood.
Did you feel you said the wrong thing?
It kind of strange to say god hates fags, and then claim the bible god is love, don't you think?
I'm not against people, just some of their opinions.
I wasn't even against your statement, just tried to put a little prospective in the number of times love is mentioned in the bible, compared to the voilent acts in it.

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Seems from history that they didn't and a lot of people today don't. Jesus demonstrated love to others by his acts.

I believe I've read a few scriptures where jesus got a little angry, but most of his story, he is said to be a loving person.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
its not MY exception, its the way it is because we as a society don't protect love or commitment, we protect young families.
Given I support CU's, I sure don't have beef with "their actions" nor them having full rights under CU's. Guess me and Obama are both bigots.

So you are alright with them marring as long as they call it something other than marriages?
Are you thinking you and obama maybe bigots, or are you asking me if I think the both of your are bigots?

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh puh-leez. I'm not going to serve as your whipping post today. Your reading comprehension SUCKS FOR AIR. SCOTUS refused to hear Baker because of a lack of a Federal question. Because of DOMA, that has changed.
Where did you get the stupid idea that States can pass whatever discriminatory law they like without Federal Intervention? And spare me your pipe dreams about "that's not the way the founders blah, blah, blah..." Federal Courts intervene in States affairs ALL THE TIME. They will continue to do so because they don't care about your silly theories.

You're an idiot, get back to me when you have had a reading comprehension class.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
...yawn...
And you debate like a parrot.
SQUAWK! the founders SQUAWK!
SQUAWK! the 10th Amendment SQUAWK!
SQUAWK! I'm right and the entire judicial system is wrong! SQUAWK!

You simply can't post anything intelligent can you?