Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,146

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

#131206 Mar 6, 2012
gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting question.
Just why do you think that support for gays continues to grow each and every year since 1969?
Eric
Deception and propaganda.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#131207 Mar 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
If the court imposes same sex marriage without regard for democratic law, they will jeopardize the union.
Did you see the Prop 8 propaganda fest? Same sex marriage is based on emotion, not law.
Really? You write SSM will jepodize the union, and then claim WE are based in emotion? Damn, Brian. Do you have more than two working brain cells?

Since: Mar 12

Los Angeles, CA

#131208 Mar 6, 2012
Believe or not my neighbor's girl-friend makes $86 every hour on the computer. She has been without work for 9 months but last month her paycheck was $8338 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more…MakeCash17.com
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#131209 Mar 6, 2012
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Keep writing ridiculous shit for all the world to see. It helps us prove our case in Court.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#131210 Mar 6, 2012
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I don't know, maybe because more and more queers are coming out of the closet
Are you trying to tell us something, Bruno? Develop a crush on your barber, did ya?
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#131211 Mar 6, 2012
gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait? What??
Did you just flip to being pro gay?
"Prop 8 supporters" = those who oppose same-sex marriage.
The anti-Prop 8 crowd, are those who SUPPORT same-sex marriage.
The Prop 8 supporters, had their backsides handed to them at the CSSC, Federal District Court and at the 9th Circut of Appeals.
Perhaps you mispoke.
Eric
actually what i was doing was explaining rational basis review..
did you know that a judge, under this standard is to look PASt evidecn epresented and conceive of any reason the law should survive. so walker's claim of evaluating the evidecne is a miss under the standard of review.

AGAIN from wiki:
"Under this standard of review, the "legitimate interest" does not have to be the government’s actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review."

so the prop 8 SUPPORTERS did not need to "bring the evidence" and that you claim they got their asses handed to them is inaccurate. They played a legal tactic and the judge burned them by not following the standard.

“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.

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
Belmont Cops Racist 19 hr justice4all 1
Disney Junior Live On Tour! in the Bay and use ... Tue multisportmom 1
Black Seadevil caught on camera at depths of 1,... Nov 24 DILF 2
Daly City Officer Charged With Excessive Force (Aug '06) Nov 24 harry singh 374
Ben smith Nov 22 old friend 1
An idea for keeping the adult school where it is Nov 21 aman jain 1
hiiiiii all of u Nov 21 pappu bhai 2

Redwood City News Video

Redwood City Dating
Find my Match

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:33 pm PST

Bleacher Report 5:33PM
Dissecting Most Crucial Matchups in 49ers' Week 13 Contest with Seahawks
NBC Sports 8:04 PM
Chris Long appears likely to return for Rams this week
Bleacher Report 9:02 PM
5 Bold Predictions for the San Francisco 49ers' Week 13 Matchup
NBC Sports 9:06 PM
Charles Woodson has no intention to retire after this season
Bleacher Report10:29 PM
5 Bold Predictions for Oakland Raiders' Week 13 Matchup