Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,038

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

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#134823 Apr 2, 2012
SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
Get ready to march and cry, because you all just don't get the law and you don't have enough stupid people.
If you believe that I have lsot this argument, feel free to present a sentence of supporting facts to disprove anything that I have said.
Well, letís see, there the equal protection clause; the 14th Amendment also enjoins states from abridging the rights of US Citizens (which gay marriage bans absolutely do); thereís strict scrutiny, the level of judicial review applicable when dealing with infringing constitutional rights like equal protection, which requires that before a constitutional right is infringed a compelling state interest must be served; There is the fact that the US Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right, and done so on 14 separate occasions; and in a separate ruling held that fundamental rights may not be put to a vote; I could go on, however you have yet to even rationally address the aforementioned.

Do I think you have lost? No. I think your arguments have been decimated one by one. You attempt, inexpertly to put words in my mouth making nonsense arguments about incest and polygamy, but the reality is that these have been addressed as a matter of law and will be unaffected by allowing same sex marriage. The jurisdictions that already allow gay marriage clearly illustrate this fact.
SURVIVORS AMERICA wrote:
Your polygamy and incest arguments were defeated 3 years ago, so come up with something new.
Actually, those are your arguments, I have correctly pointed out that they are irrelevant, as they have both been addressed by law and would not change if marriage equality were allowed.

Your polygamy argument is particularly priceless and childlike, simply because it is so easily dispatched by indicating the simple fact that it seeks greater (three or more is greater than two), not equal, protection of the law.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#134825 Apr 2, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
Unless I'm wrong, gays have every right everyone else does; namely, they can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Nice rationalization. I have a question for you, what legitimate state interest is served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that makes such a restriction constitutional?
Prof Marvel wrote:
This means in order for the government to concede that gays are being treated unequally, the government must first accept -- as you do -- the notion that homosexuality is normal and poses no health threat just as it would have to accept the notion that incest is normal and poses no health threat.
Arguments of normalcy are utterly irrelevant. The KKK and Westboro Baptist Church are by no means normal, however that does not affect their right to free speech. It seems that you are merely rationalizing once again. That said, it isnít even a particularly good rationalization.
Prof Marvel wrote:
This question of safety is key. Were the government to permit incestuous marriages -- which we know are not safe -- we'd be flooded with babies with birth defects.
Ergo, there is a legitimate state interest served by disallowing incestuous marriages. What legitimate state interest do you think is served by denying same sex couples the right to marry
I love it when you make a point that actually damages your argument.
Prof Marvel wrote:
In other words, the government must balance the rights and protections in the Constitution against public health concerns.
Do you at least concede this much, you dodo?
If there is a legitimate state interest, then constitutional rights may be infringed. You have yet to turn up a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.

And before you trot out a tired argument about the higher rate of the transmission of STIs via homosexual sex (yes, you really are that transparent), remember these two things; a) Lawrence v Texas struck down laws barring homosexual sodomy, citing that the state had no legitimate interest in the private sexual conduct of citizens; and b) disallowing same sex marriage does not prevent homosexuals from having sex, allowing it does promote monogamous relationships, which would help curb the spread of STIs by reducing the number of sexual partners one has.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#134826 Apr 2, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you stoop immediately to a quip, rather than address the substantial question before you. "Do you actually consider the demand for equality to be a radical idea?"
It appears you M.O. is obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.
That wasn't the "substantial question before me" The words I "stooped immediately to" were "You are another Nazi Fundietard"

Godwin's Law. Don't like it? Don't evoke it.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#134827 Apr 2, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
.....Your polygamy argument is particularly priceless and childlike, simply because it is so easily dispatched by indicating the simple fact that it seeks greater (three or more is greater than two), not equal, protection of the law.
"...seeks greater protection (three is greater than 2)" Now that's Priceless! Just priceless!

Anyone who supports same sex marriage but not polygamy is a bigot and a hypocrite.

I support marriage equality for all consenting adults. You do not. The end.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Baltimore, MD

#134828 Apr 2, 2012
gemelk wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you said it was a "peer review" - you did intend in your own choice of words to mislead.
What you posted was an opinion, not universally shared by others or noted by others who also posted.
The biostatistician also failed to note that this study has an extremely high retention rate which for a study this long, is remarkable.
Remember, there are lies, dang lies and statistics. There is no "Cinderella" effect here. What this study does compared to other studies on LGBT parenting, is support the notion that LGBT parent put a lot more thought and a lot more of their lives into parenting. LGBT parents, like the community they are part of, must put more work into all we do, including parenting, because the societal deck is stacked against us. We don't "accidentally"
have kids, we choose to have them and then have a process that we have to work at very hard to get them. It is that deliberative process that gives us a slight edge and that has been recognized by other studies of this type, much like IVF or surrogacy parents.
People who have to work harder for a goal, tend to produce better results.
Eric
And here we see Eric doesn't even know what "peer review" means. Here's his definition:
What you posted was an opinion, not universally shared by others or noted by others who also posted.-- Eric
No, Eric, "peer review" does not mean "universally shared by others or noted by others" it simply means "reviewed by a peer" ... generally in some published venue -- that's all, son.

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#134829 Apr 2, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't the "substantial question before me" The words I "stooped immediately to" were "You are another Nazi Fundietard"
Godwin's Law. Don't like it? Don't evoke it.
Bull! You were simply avoiding the question. So I'll repeat it without the Nazi comment.

Do you think that demanding equal rights is a radical idea??

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134830 Apr 2, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
And here we see Eric doesn't even know what "peer review" means. Here's his definition:
<quoted text>
No, Eric, "peer review" does not mean "universally shared by others or noted by others" it simply means "reviewed by a peer" ... generally in some published venue -- that's all, son.
You are correct. Sometimes aberrant studies find there way into publishing. But it is akin to finding the average, you throw out those that are too far from the rest when calculating. Since no one repeated this study or anything close to it, it really holds no credible place in this area.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#134832 Apr 2, 2012
Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull! You were simply avoiding the question. So I'll repeat it without the Nazi comment.
Do you think that demanding equal rights is a radical idea??
You gotta pay attention. Maybe strap your knee down so it doesn't jerk so easily.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#134833 Apr 2, 2012
Religionthebiglie wrote:
Bull! You were simply avoiding the question. So I'll repeat it without the Nazi comment.
Do you think that demanding equal rights is a radical idea??
Rizzo isn't here to make any relevant comment on the discussion, they are just stirring the pot.
They clearly will say anything to get a rise out of someone, and have no intention of adding anyhting particularly meaningful.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#134834 Apr 2, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
.html
Sooo, the first google link as suggested by you mentions reproduction as a right independent of marriage. Subsequent links reflect similarly. I didn't find one that tied marriage to reproduction as it would seem you want to indicate. Procreation is even protected for homosexuals in that choice is not eliminated for unmarried persons.
that procreation rights were held outside of marriage does not change that marriage itself is protected only as it relates to that same procreation.
procreation is the liberty, not access to a state issued LICENSE.
Read LOVING again...

In short, marriage is linked to procreation because that's how some of us procreators want it.

For example,what is the legal definition of "bastard"?
Funny it has birth and marriage in the same sentence...is that a LINK found in the law.

Linked and required are not the same thing. Procreation is not required to have a marriage, but the constitution protects procreation and to the extent its linked to procreation, some marriage rights too.

And again, we do not have a right to GOVERNMENT recognition based in our right to privacy also called our right to be let ALONE from gov't. We do maintain a right to be free from govt intrusion in having our kids.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#134835 Apr 2, 2012
Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>

This is all in the 9th district court ruling, if you have any trouble with these facts.
And the 9th circuit specifically limited the decision to CA, which is not usually an indication of "good law"...

they dodged SCOTUS review and we both know why...

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#134836 Apr 2, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You gotta pay attention. Maybe strap your knee down so it doesn't jerk so easily.
Whatever. Happy trolling.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#134837 Apr 2, 2012
this thread is running out of steam . . .

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134839 Apr 2, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
And the 9th circuit specifically limited the decision to CA, which is not usually an indication of "good law"...
they dodged SCOTUS review and we both know why...
Evasion. Their decision makes everything you said a lie. Care to man up and reply to that??
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#134840 Apr 2, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Rizzo isn't here to make any relevant comment on the discussion, they are just stirring the pot.
They clearly will say anything to get a rise out of someone, and have no intention of adding anyhting particularly meaningful.
I'm adding polygamy. It's particularly meaningful. You're just mad at me.

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#134841 Apr 2, 2012
Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever. Happy trolling.
Same to you hotshot!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134842 Apr 2, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
You've asked this question a dozen times and I and many others have patently provided you with the answer. Mainly, by allowing same-sex marriage the government does two things it should not do:
1. Give the false impression homosexual sex is safe.
2. Send out the message that homosexuality is normal.
http://www.obamnesty.com/index.php...
<quoted text>
The KKK and Westboro Baptist Church are not trying to change our marriage laws. You and people like you want to be in our schools teaching our kids anal sex, rimming, pee play and all the other things in The Little Black Book are "normal."
http://www.massresistance.info/downloads/Litt...
It's called "cause and effect." In Massachusetts before the ink was dry on the same-sex marriage bill, gays were demanding all school curriculum become "gay friendly" -- that books showing men kissing men be placed in the hands of the kids.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/kin...
Do you believe books depicting men kissing men should be placed in the hands of kids?
<quoted text>
See above.
<quoted text>
There certainly isn't any data showing same-sex marriage promotes monogamy -- that's just homosexual urban legend. The closest you get to that idea is Nanette Gartrell's most recent study showing 56% of Lesbian parents break-up before their children reach 17 (compared to 3-30 of heterosexual parents break-up rate).
And once again you need to stop misquoting Lawrence vs Texas. It did not conclude "the state had no legitimate interest in the private sexual conduct of citizens," -- that's just your border-line functionally illiterate reading of the decision.
Lawrence vs Texas addressed the specific act of sodomy -- NOT all private sexual acts as you so ignorantly keep insisting.
Homosexual marriage IS safe. As safe as any marriage can be, homosexual or heterosexual. No difference.

And normal??? You bet. Very normal for us.

So these are non-issues.

There is no state interest in preventing us from marrying. You haven't presented any, the courts haven't presented any, the voters have used only hate as their basis. There is not a LEGAL leg to stand on.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#134843 Apr 2, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm adding polygamy. It's particularly meaningful. You're just mad at me.
YUK!YUK!YUK!
If you are so set on polygamy, why aren't you out there working to make it legal??? Put your money where your mouth is. I'm busy right now working on equality rights for homosexuals. If you get the Polygamy bandwagon going, I'll back you up, once you have figured out how to untangle the government ramifications. Lots of states allow cousin marriages, with restrictions. You could use that a stepping stone to brother/sister marriage. That IS what you want, right???

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#134844 Apr 2, 2012
What are all of these people going to do when SSM is legal in all 50 states. Move? nah, commit suicide? nah. They will do....NOTHING and continue living day by day as they now. Then realize....oh it's not hurting my marriage at all! Well, DUH! Then find somebody else to push their hate on. GET OVER IT. It's here and NOT going nowhere!!!
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#134845 Apr 2, 2012
Gay Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are so set on polygamy, why aren't you out there working to make it legal??? Put your money where your mouth is. I'm busy right now working on equality rights for homosexuals. If you get the Polygamy bandwagon going, I'll back you up, once you have figured out how to untangle the government ramifications. Lots of states allow cousin marriages, with restrictions. You could use that a stepping stone to brother/sister marriage. That IS what you want, right???
Naah, my sister has a heart of gold and I love her but she's real fat and has warts all over. YUK!YUK!YUK!

Why would you deny equal protection to a brother sister marriage. What harm would their marriage cause you? Modern medicine has proven inbreeding is not dangerous. And besides marriage has nothing to do with procreation, right? Right.

Don't worry, I'm not asking for solidarity, SSM supporters here are a selfish lot. But of course I support SSM because if I didn't I'd be a hypocrite. Like you.

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
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 hr big meech 16,010
How would you like to/be proposed? 11 hr Jimmy 2
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sep 28 No Time for Tea 5,084
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sep 27 Bucketeers 7,965
....PLANT Native....garden... Sep 25 shykora paul arts 1
Disney on Ice is back in San Jose! Discount on ... Sep 24 multisportmom 1
Suspects in San Mateo auto dealerships thefts a... Sep 23 STTs 1

Redwood City News Video

Redwood City Jobs

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 ]