Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,317

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

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#131212 Mar 6, 2012
Watchmann wrote:
No question that stupid thinking or behavior (like anal sex) can be fatal. That does not relate to or change evolutionary survival of the fittest.
There simply is no clear evidence that homosexuality is used by evolution to lower population. One reason is there has never been a need to yet.
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep writing ridiculous shit for all the world to see. It helps us prove our case in Court.
Hmmm, got that from a atheist evolution scientist at Princeton University...
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#131213 Mar 6, 2012
Watchmann wrote:
Watchmann wrote:
No question that stupid thinking or behavior (like anal sex) can be fatal. That does not relate to or change evolutionary survival of the fittest.
There simply is no clear evidence that homosexuality is used by evolution to lower population. One reason is there has never been a need to yet.
<quoted text>
Hmmm, got that from a atheist evolution scientist at Princeton University...
Anal sex is fatal? Really?
SpamOlater

Covina, CA

#131214 Mar 6, 2012
It's terrible tuesday for the republican/Tea Paty Nation member's again!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#131215 Mar 6, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Anal sex is fatal? Really?
If we limit the deaths to AIDS alone, about 30 million people have died as of 2010. 2 million last year alone.

While not all are sex/anal sex related, most are.

Because of the design of the anus, it is extremely susceptible to infection.

That makes anal sex in our life-time much more dangerous than Christianity.

smile
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#131216 Mar 6, 2012
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then please cite to the part of the SCOTUS opinion in Baker where this is discussed.
I'll wait.
the part where they held a gay marriage ban "presents no substantial federal question".

you already admitted that was the current law, why are being purposefully thick?
SpamOlater

Covina, CA

#131217 Mar 6, 2012
More is enough since the people had decided.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#131219 Mar 6, 2012
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then please cite to the part of the SCOTUS opinion in Baker where this is discussed.
I'll wait.
You'll be able to have breakfast, lunch and dinner, an evening out on the town and a little evening treat with the spouse before you get an answer from Brian.......lol:-)
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#131220 Mar 6, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
the part where they held a gay marriage ban "presents no substantial federal question".
you already admitted that was the current law, why are being purposefully thick?
That's not a ruling on the merits, that's a cowardly dodge and you know it. If you were correct, that would be the final say on the issue - and you know damn well it isn't, or we wouldn't be here and the 9th wouldn't be taking cases.

Your argument that it's "current law" is stupid. Of course it is, and it needs to be changed. Recall that it was once "current law" that a black man was a slave, women could not vote and separate schools for minorities were legal. Do you think Plessy v. Ferguson is good law now, because it once was?

You like sterilization cases like Skinner, eh? Do you think Buck v. Bell was good law? Eh?

You have no argument, all you can do is restate the issue and try to call it one.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#131221 Mar 6, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Anal sex is fatal? Really?
Only the way he does it.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#131222 Mar 6, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll be able to have breakfast, lunch and dinner, an evening out on the town and a little evening treat with the spouse before you get an answer from Brian.......lol:-)
He keeps right on beating the same drum and never addressing a single counterpoint made.

He's a sniveling little law student trying to play lawyer on the Internet, without realizing that there might be real ones out there lurking too.

Law students are insufferable douchebags. I know, I used to be one and I shudder to think that I may have acted like this bloviating pustule once or twice.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#131224 Mar 6, 2012
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a ruling on the merits,
PROVE IT.

I'll follow my own advice.
from wiki, or you could look anywhere and find the same thing:

"In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]

this is basic stuff...

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#131225 Mar 6, 2012
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
He keeps right on beating the same drum and never addressing a single counterpoint made.
He's a sniveling little law student trying to play lawyer on the Internet, without realizing that there might be real ones out there lurking too.
Law students are insufferable douchebags. I know, I used to be one and I shudder to think that I may have acted like this bloviating pustule once or twice.
Well, we all do grow and hopefully learn from our young mistakes......lol!!!
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#131226 Mar 6, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
PROVE IT.
I'll follow my own advice.
from wiki, or you could look anywhere and find the same thing:
"In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]
this is basic stuff...
Wiki? Really?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21017674/Baker-v-Ne...
See now the entire text of the ruling (I won't call it an opinion, BECAUSE IT ISN'T a ruling on the substantive merits).

Moreover, you are relying on this one sentence from 1972? Seriously?

This is why I know you are not, and have never been, a trial lawyer. If Baker shut this issue down in 1972, how then do you explain the court cases that continue today? They exist because Baker did not have the effect you claim it had, besides being relatively very old law. You pretend that no cases on this issue have happened in the interim that would move these issues outside the very narrow precedential scope of Baker?

You are a law student, chump, and I am increasingly convinced you aren't even a very good one at that.

Basic stuff indeed. 1972. Seriously. If this were 1973 or 1975 you might have a point, but the case law in the circuits has developed a tad since then.

I notice you didn't bother posting the rest of the Wiki article which describes the limitations on this ruling, but you are very good at cherry picking, aren't you?

Too bad that is no substitute for real advocacy, of which you evidently know nothing.

if you were correct, none of these gay marriage cases now would ever have gone to trial. Their mere existence proves you wrong.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#131227 Mar 6, 2012
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiki? Really?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21017674/Baker-v-Ne...
See now the entire text of the ruling (I won't call it an opinion, BECAUSE IT ISN'T a ruling on the substantive merits).
Moreover, you are relying on this one sentence from 1972? Seriously?
This is why I know you are not, and have never been, a trial lawyer. If Baker shut this issue down in 1972, how then do you explain the court cases that continue today? They exist because Baker did not have the effect you claim it had, besides being relatively very old law. You pretend that no cases on this issue have happened in the interim that would move these issues outside the very narrow precedential scope of Baker?
You are a law student, chump, and I am increasingly convinced you aren't even a very good one at that.
Basic stuff indeed. 1972. Seriously. If this were 1973 or 1975 you might have a point, but the case law in the circuits has developed a tad since then.
I notice you didn't bother posting the rest of the Wiki article which describes the limitations on this ruling, but you are very good at cherry picking, aren't you?
Too bad that is no substitute for real advocacy, of which you evidently know nothing.
if you were correct, none of these gay marriage cases now would ever have gone to trial. Their mere existence proves you wrong.
ITS OLD?

Thats your point...that its old, SO IS THE CONSTITUTION right?

Listen, I am old, and therefore old enough to know what it means when someone has to attack you personally and tout themselves in every statement...

So again, explain why you agree that Kagan stated the current law when she said NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE and then counter that with all this?
THEN say marriage is per see fundamental...but you admitted Kagan's statement was accurate...HOW IS THAT?
Was she just relying on something OLD?

Explain what she meant, then?

Say what you want about me, but its a dodge of what you already admitted to.

how would none of the cases have gone to trial? This ignores very basic elements of standing.
Thats like me saying there would be no DOMA if there was such a right. I respond the same way you do, they have to work their way through. A failing point.

You are counting rights gays don't yet have and claiming they already do because they soon will.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#131228 Mar 6, 2012
Gay Mom wrote:
An all the emotion came from the frustrated pro Prop 8 people who couldn't come up with ONE reason as to why they needed this Constitutional Amendment. NOT ONE. And only two witnesses willing to testify, with one who ended up supporting our side.
The court excluded evidence and testimony in favor of husband/wife marriage. The people of California had plenty of good reasons to write marriage law by referendum, as shown in Walker's ruling.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#131229 Mar 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The court excluded evidence and testimony in favor of husband/wife marriage. The people of California had plenty of good reasons to write marriage law by referendum, as shown in Walker's ruling.
STOP TELLING THAT HEINOUS LIE!

You know better Brian! Now why are you lying?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#131230 Mar 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The court excluded evidence and testimony in favor of husband/wife marriage. The people of California had plenty of good reasons to write marriage law by referendum, as shown in Walker's ruling.
Actually, you'd be wrong again.....Prop 8's SOLE PURPOSE was to remove the title of "MARRIAGE" to just Same-Sex Couples without removing necessarily the rights, benefits or privileges.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#131231 Mar 6, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
ITS OLD?
Thats your point...that its old, SO IS THE CONSTITUTION right?
Listen, I am old, and therefore old enough to know what it means when someone has to attack you personally and tout themselves in every statement...
So again, explain why you agree that Kagan stated the current law when she said NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE and then counter that with all this?
THEN say marriage is per see fundamental...but you admitted Kagan's statement was accurate...HOW IS THAT?
Was she just relying on something OLD?
Explain what she meant, then?
Say what you want about me, but its a dodge of what you already admitted to.
how would none of the cases have gone to trial? This ignores very basic elements of standing.
Thats like me saying there would be no DOMA if there was such a right. I respond the same way you do, they have to work their way through. A failing point.
You are counting rights gays don't yet have and claiming they already do because they soon will.
Old case law is not the same as an old statute, or an old constitution. Case law develops over time, rendering something like a mere memorandum dismissal increasingly meaningless over time.

You should know that, fake lawyer.

Again with the irrelevant Kagan business. You really aren't very good at this. Perhaps you should stick to filling out Medicaid forms for illiterate little old ladies.

Kagan's statement was accurate, your use of her statement is, however, extremely dishonest. Her correct response to the question has no bearing on this issue, she simply stated (as did the 9th) that as of now there is no federally recognized right to gay marriage. Again, no shit. That's why we are here arguing. It's really asinine of you to present her statement as some kind of legal authority when it is not, and in fact it's nothing more than a restatement of the ultimate issue. This has already been pointed out to you, but you just dodged it again and again.

There have been many gay marriage cases, in federal courts - so where then is Baker? Why aren't judges just throwing out these cases at the district level based on Baker? Clearly your interpretation of the precedential effect of Baker is seriously exaggerated - once again - the existence of these cases proves you wrong. Baker did not stop them, because it's precedential value is EXTREMELY limited (you know, that part of the wiki article that was conspicuously absent from your post).

Standing? Baker was about straight jurisdiction, as you claim, that it does not present a federal question. If that is so, why are there federal gay marriage cases out there? Eh? Reality proves you wrong, Reality.

I already explained it in terms any real lawyer would understand, and you have consistently avoided addressing my counterpoints:

- that current interpretation of constitutional law are inconsistent with banning gay marriage and;
- that there is no legitimate state interest in banning it under ANY standard of review.

I have posed these arguments to you half a dozen times, and you avoid addressing them in every one of your posts.

It's pretty obvious who is playing games here, only you aren't doing it very well.
-

You should stick to being a poverty pimp Medicaid form filler, because you have no career in advocacy.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#131232 Mar 6, 2012
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>

that as of now there is no federally recognized right to gay marriage.

You should stick to being a poverty pimp Medicaid form filler, because you have no career in advocacy.
Listen, I am old, and therefore old enough to know what it means when someone has to attack you personally and tout themselves in every statement...

you agree...all i was responding to was a REPEATED claim that there is a fundamental right to gay marriage...you yoruself have said marriage is per se fundamental yet you seem to grasp "no federally recognized right to gay marriage."

Again, how is there so well a developed right, yet no right at all?

Insults are not advocacy. Neither is your feelings or how you hope things will go.

So I will just summarize, All marriage is fundamental including gay marriage except currently gay marriage is not.

Do I understand you right?

Forget it, I have enough of you lack of support and constant childish quipps that old salty dogs I know don't EVER feel the need to do. Why do you think that is, yet you need to toot your own horn and try to condescend me in EVERY post?
I know why and thats too bad for you, but I really don't care.

Again, don't you have some high powered lobbyists to tell what to say and some medicare patients for you to insult and belittle you lawyer of the people you?
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#131233 Mar 6, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
STOP TELLING THAT HEINOUS LIE!
You know better Brian! Now why are you lying?
Mona, did you call your own post bigotry?

fess up or stop calling everyone else a liar.

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Border Agents Make Zero-Tolerance Zone (Aug '06) 3 hr roberto 59
Palo Alto Shoppers Concerned About Sidewalk Glass Jan 22 Markjewbook 2
Review: Windoor Service Jan 21 jstrong196 1
East Palo Alto takes step toward preserving its... Jan 7 Thomas C Sanders 1
Which cheap and legit site to buy fifa 15 coins? Dec '14 alex 3
Daly City Officer Charged With Excessive Force (Aug '06) Dec '14 yes call me 09864... 376
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Dec '14 Arabia 111

Redwood City News Video

Redwood City Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:39 am PST

NBC Sports 5:39AM
Raiders adding Sal Sunseri to defensive staff
NBC Sports 6:31 AM
Raiders hire Todd Downing as quarterbacks coach
NBC Sports 7:09 AM
Perry Fewell to interview for position coach job with 49ers
Yahoo! Sports 8:12 AM
The lure of LA for the NFL - mirage or 'must do'?
NBC Sports10:39 AM
Alleghany County sheriff: No conflict of interest with deputy working for Steelers