Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 comments on the Aug 4, 2010, www.cnn.com story 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#142686 May 26, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._sta...
<quoted text>
......Take a real long look at the U.S. map. 31 states and 10 more coming up soon. That includes California's Proposition 8. The vast majority of the American people and states know that going against Mother Nature has never been associated with American slavery, a totally different issue. Americans, religious and secular, are not fools.
That might actually mean something if the bans served a legitimate state interest, but they do not. That being the case, the bans are unconstitutional, as they expressly abridge the rights of US citizens, which is forbidden by the 14th Amendment. One might also keep in mind that the US Supreme Court has held that "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette.

Feel free to indicate a legitimate state interest served by these bans that would render them constitutional. I don't think you will be able to do so.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#142687 May 26, 2012
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Being gay is not fundamental to existence, sorry. And why do you gays keep attempting to co-opt the Loving vs Virginia precedent? In that case, it was still a man and woman getting married. There was not and still is not any basis for "race" to be used in the enforcement or drafting laws. Loving vs Virginia has NOTHING to do with the gay marriage push. It is CLEAR in your own quote:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"
If this was about some generic definition of marriage, it would not have included the words "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
The gay agenda is being fiercely resisted because of the underhanded bitch-tricks you people use. Anybody with integrity would easily understand that phrase as being between a man and a woman.
GAY IS NOT THE NEW BLACK.
THE OLD BLACK IS STILL BLACK
And blacks will never support gay marriage in large numbers, no matter what black celebrity or President says they support it. The Asians do not support it, and the majority of Hispanics do not support it. The votes in the states do not support it, and the Constitution does not grant special rights to gay people or anyone else. Marriage is a defined NATURAL coupling between a man and a woman, and recognized by law. That is why one needs a license to be married legally. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Two men or two women in a couple is not a marriage no matter what any paper says.
Seems like you are out of touch with reality. Big surprise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#142688 May 26, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Yawn..
Translation: "Caught again, damn, oh well, better to try a feeble argument than admit I was wrong."
akpilot wrote:
The 14th requires citizens to have equal protection, not slaves. So no, there would be no need to eliminate the 14th in order for the States to bring back slavery.
Slavery based on race, or pretty much any other suspect classification, wouldn't be allowed as long as the 14th Amendment remains in force. Unless ANYONE can be a slave and/or owner because slavery is a legally available option for EVERYONE (reasonable restrictions apply), or anyone kept out of the business on the basis of a suspect classification, would have varying degrees of an equal protection claim.

So much for your feeble defense of your original argument. The point remains.... If the country managed to survive more or less as it presently exists through the process of of actually repealing the 13th Amendment, slavery, beyond the current illegal trade (which would now be 'constitutionally protected', but not legal), wouldn't be an automatic, only a possibility, because the 14th isn't the only legal obstacle to its return. The laws which make the aforementioned, currently existing illegal trade illegal are another obstacle you failed to even address.
akpilot wrote:
But then again you are stuck on stupid, you are so busy trying to scream "slavery" that you have completely forgotten the entire purpose of the example-
Screaming "slavery"? WTF? Buttercup, you're the one who ventured off to stupid when you screamed, that "slavery" would return if the country repealed the 13th Amendment. I just wanted to point out, that even in the incredibly unlikely event many of us would have lived to actually repeal the 13th, that wouldn't make "slavery" either constitutional or legal. THAT was your original point, now let's deal with your historical revisionism:
akpilot wrote:
the States can do as they please with or without Federal consent. It is the Federal Government which must beg permission to seize power.
Oh, so sorry, the correct answers would be: "While the founding fathers envisioned a federal government which managed a very limited range of the common interests of the quasi-independent states, the Constitution they wrote, gives the federal government a great deal of leeway in assuming most, if not almost all, of the powers they have assumed thus far. The now less than quasi-independent states, are able to "do as they please", a whole heck of a lot less today than they were back then, because that is the type of government the people have voted for. They remain bound by the constitutional guarantees of the rights of the individual and at the mercy of most decisions of the federal government and the only way to amend the Constitution and alter this arrangement is by permission of said federal government."

Remember, it's the states themselves and by extension, we the people, which have provided us with the self-perpetuating circus of a federal government we know today. To our credit however, we have established a system where it's a hell of a lot harder for the states to "do as they please" when it comes to screwing with OUR rights, especially in ways you're hypothesizing.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#142689 May 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage isn't the central issue. It's important that all are treated with respect and dignity, we reject violence and hatred directed toward any group. There are places in the world, where political opponents are called homosexuals and discredited; as long as gays are prosecuted for consensual adult associations; same sex marriage is a distraction.
Congratulations, you're actually right for a change. The same sex marriage issue is merely a facet of the effort to ensure that Lesbian and Gay Americans and ultimately all LGBT people around the world are treated with respect and dignity; where they can live in a world where violence against them has been rejected and the hatred of them denounced by those who believe in the dignity and respect of all people. In order for same sex couples to be treated with dignity and respect, they must have access and be subject to the very same laws which apply to opposite sex "marriage". If you disapprove of same sex marriage, fine, don't marry someone of the same sex and respectfully decline if invited to one of our weddings, but don't you imagine that legally and constitutionally barring us from those laws originally written to manage male/female couples in "marriage" can be seen by us as rather disrespectful, not the best example of being treated with dignity that would come to mind and just plain mean? Same sex marriage isn't a distraction for us, it is a series of rights, benefits, protections and obligations that same sex couples and families, some of whom have been together for decades, have needed for decades. For those of you "opposed" to same sex marriage and/or LGBT people in general who have created this ugly distraction from what is really the right thing to do.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#142690 May 26, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Congratulations, you're actually right for a change. The same sex marriage issue is merely a facet of the effort to ensure that Lesbian and Gay Americans and ultimately all LGBT people around the world are treated with respect and dignity; where they can live in a world where violence against them has been rejected and the hatred of them denounced by those who believe in the dignity and respect of all people. In order for same sex couples to be treated with dignity and respect, they must have access and be subject to the very same laws which apply to opposite sex "marriage". If you disapprove of same sex marriage, fine, don't marry someone of the same sex and respectfully decline if invited to one of our weddings, but don't you imagine that legally and constitutionally barring us from those laws originally written to manage male/female couples in "marriage" can be seen by us as rather disrespectful, not the best example of being treated with dignity that would come to mind and just plain mean? Same sex marriage isn't a distraction for us, it is a series of rights, benefits, protections and obligations that same sex couples and families, some of whom have been together for decades, have needed for decades. For those of you "opposed" to same sex marriage and/or LGBT people in general who have created this ugly distraction from what is really the right thing to do.
Outstanding post! You've made excellent points and with respect for everyone. This is what wins people over, not the usual disrespect from both sides most often found on this thread. Thank you for a very refreshing post.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#142691 May 26, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._sta...

......Take a real long look at the U.S. map. 31 states and 10 more coming up soon. That includes California's Proposition 8. The vast majority of the American people and states know that going against Mother Nature has never been associated with American slavery, a totally different issue. Americans, religious and secular, are not fools.
You have been riding this horse an awful lot the last couple of days, perhaps no one has told you that amendments to state constitutions can be and have been overturned when they are found to be in violation of rights guaranteed by the US Constitution? Maybe you didn't know that the case of Loving v Virginia took the constitutional legs out from under 7 amendments states had enacted to prevent interracial marriage from being "forced" on them? Or that amendments to state constitutions that dis the Gay folk can be overturned too? Look up the case of Romer v Evans if you don't believe me. As for all those amendments, if the people don't find the wisdom to repeal them, then the courts will dismantle them in their place. Those states which have enacted amendments which deny any and all legal recognition of the rights of same sex couples will be the first to sink, the rest will be dragged down in their wake.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#142692 May 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Doesn't change the truth I stated, does it?
2. Takes one to know one, right?
3. I face/faced my defects. You are afraid to face yours. I think that is really stupid.
You lack truth like the Mojave Desert lacks water. I never saw any truth in any of your rants or I'd be agreeing with them.

Help??

LOL!!!

Takes one to know one?? No...it's about the ability to tell right and wrong. If I saw some bozo shooting little puppy dogs in his front yard with a shotgun I'd stop him too but it didn't take being a canine to figure out what action to take moron.

My defects??? I don't use 'spellcheck' in here for one which no doubt causes some to up their Excedrine usage. My wife says I dress like I shop at Ross so I have to clean that up. I stay up too late. Helll...I have a lot of defects Junior and I face them but none of those defects include being a certified nutter who needs a typed letter to walk the streets of my neighborhood like you...LOL!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#142693 May 26, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._sta...
<quoted text>
......Take a real long look at the U.S. map. 31 states and 10 more coming up soon. That includes California's Proposition 8. The vast majority of the American people and states know that going against Mother Nature has never been associated with American slavery, a totally different issue. Americans, religious and secular, are not fools.
You can stare at whatever you want Einstein. We're not talking about the eradication of polio here but the existance of a basic right a group of individuals who happen to be gay wish to possess - marriage.

I wasn't for gay marriage either until I actually placed thought into what it was and only then did I personally determine gays should have the freedom to marry the adult of their choice.

If I can come to that conclusion you better believe others will. You do have a large grouping whom are against gay marriage primarily on a religious format but guess what Junior....religion is not supposed to dictate the freedoms of American citizens....it's un-Consitutional and will be argued as such.

It's not done yet, nationwide marriage, but it's my firm belief it will take place. It's your belief it will be stamped out.

Good luck.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#142694 May 26, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Outstanding post! You've made excellent points and with respect for everyone. This is what wins people over, not the usual disrespect from both sides most often found on this thread. Thank you for a very refreshing post.
Rick appreciates your approval....especially when it's like someone giving congradulations to a neighbor for building the addition to his house when your input during that time was to continue calling the permit department with false information in order to stop the build.

You're such a hypocrite it's sickening...LOL!!!

And what's hilarious is that you refuse to acknowledge it.

Hey jackass....if you're really for gays marrying why not lay out some comment to those in this forum against it????
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#142695 May 26, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You lack truth like the Mojave Desert lacks water. I never saw any truth in any of your rants or I'd be agreeing with them.
Help??
LOL!!!
Takes one to know one?? No...it's about the ability to tell right and wrong. If I saw some bozo shooting little puppy dogs in his front yard with a shotgun I'd stop him too but it didn't take being a canine to figure out what action to take moron.
My defects??? I don't use 'spellcheck' in here for one which no doubt causes some to up their Excedrine usage. My wife says I dress like I shop at Ross so I have to clean that up. I stay up too late. Helll...I have a lot of defects Junior and I face them but none of those defects include being a certified nutter who needs a typed letter to walk the streets of my neighborhood like you...LOL!!!
The Mojave Desert thrives with little water. it's natural. Does it make a difference what kind of gun might be used in shooting the puppy dogs? How would you stop him? would if it was a female or a homosexual? Would you throw yourself in front of the puppy dogs? You wife sounds stupid like you, it's now where you buy clothes, it's what you buy. So your defects are that you have the size of junior? How sad. LOL!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#142696 May 26, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>The Mojave Desert thrives with little water. it's natural. Does it make a difference what kind of gun might be used in shooting the puppy dogs? How would you stop him? would if it was a female or a homosexual? Would you throw yourself in front of the puppy dogs? You wife sounds stupid like you, it's now where you buy clothes, it's what you buy. So your defects are that you have the size of junior? How sad. LOL!!!
Do you actually think this classifies as a rational argument?

Can you actually indicate any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would make such a restriction constitutional?
Dan

Roseville, CA

#142697 May 26, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>The Mojave Desert thrives with little water. it's natural. Does it make a difference what kind of gun might be used in shooting the puppy dogs? How would you stop him? would if it was a female or a homosexual? Would you throw yourself in front of the puppy dogs? You wife sounds stupid like you, it's now where you buy clothes, it's what you buy. So your defects are that you have the size of junior? How sad. LOL!!!
Weren't you the spud who called me out a couple of months ago only to have me advise you of where I was going to get my hair cut if yuo were so bent you felt the need to get physical and then you never showed up???

Yeah...it was you...LOL!!!

The Mojave desert doesn't "thrive" like the Amazon rain forest now does it genius...LOL!!!

Answer my earlier question - what's your beef against gays in specifics? Why not let them marry other than giving us your DICKED up opinion you don't want them to "because".
Sawbers pudenda

Hoboken, NJ

#142698 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you actually think this classifies as a rational argument?
lol...... if he only knew how stupid he looks when he writes that crazy shit.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#142699 May 26, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>The Mojave Desert thrives with little water. it's natural. Does it make a difference what kind of gun might be used in shooting the puppy dogs? How would you stop him? would if it was a female or a homosexual? Would you throw yourself in front of the puppy dogs? You wife sounds stupid like you, it's now where you buy clothes, it's what you buy. So your defects are that you have the size of junior? How sad. LOL!!!
BTW...it was a shotgun...like I mentioned in the post DUMBASS.

"would if it was a female or a homosexual?"- Wouldn't matter DUMBASS.

"it's now where you buy clothes, it's what you buy." - WTF???

My defects are that I have the size of a junior???- There is no clothing size of 'junior' in men's clothes or anywhere else that I'm aware of idiot -

Quick advice - don't drink booze at 8 A.M.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#142700 May 26, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Weren't you the spud who called me out a couple of months ago only to have me advise you of where I was going to get my hair cut if yuo were so bent you felt the need to get physical and then you never showed up???
Yeah...it was you...LOL!!!
The Mojave desert doesn't "thrive" like the Amazon rain forest now does it genius...LOL!!!
Answer my earlier question - what's your beef against gays in specifics? Why not let them marry other than giving us your DICKED up opinion you don't want them to "because".
No, I have never made a threat. I'm sure you have me confused with another fan of yours, you have so many. The Amazon rain forest doesn't thrive as the Mojave desert does, does it genius? I already answered that question, why the short term memory? pot? Nothing against gays, just want to keep the marriage the traditional man woman. You have a problem with that? are you a bigot or something? why do u call them "them". are u ashamed to call them gay? or homosexual or Lesbian? You act like a lot of stupid people here that this argument needs to be WON here. Do you think this topix on homosexual marriage here will make any any difference what so ever? I come here to mock how stupid you are, that's it.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#142701 May 26, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW...it was a shotgun...like I mentioned in the post DUMBASS.
"would if it was a female or a homosexual?"- Wouldn't matter DUMBASS.
"it's now where you buy clothes, it's what you buy." - WTF???
My defects are that I have the size of a junior???- There is no clothing size of 'junior' in men's clothes or anywhere else that I'm aware of idiot -
Quick advice - don't drink booze at 8 A.M.
Would if it was a stun gun or a revolver, would that change things to your story? Sorry typo, it should have read: "it's NOT where"....it's just you like to use the word "junior", seems like it might be another defect of yours.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#142702 May 26, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Rick appreciates your approval....especially when it's like someone giving congradulations to a neighbor for building the addition to his house when your input during that time was to continue calling the permit department with false information in order to stop the build.
You're such a hypocrite it's sickening...LOL!!!
And what's hilarious is that you refuse to acknowledge it.
Hey jackass....if you're really for gays marrying why not lay out some comment to those in this forum against it????
You are a paranoid idiot and a class A jackass Dan. You make enemies against a cause you don't even have a stake in. I'm sure people wanting same sex marriage DON'T appreciate you.

Before the day is over, you'll be threatening violence again. Probably against me. I'd call you a bully but you're not even that you're just a punk getting off on disrespecting people from safely behind your keyboard.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142704 May 26, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...

In its decision, the court wrote:
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
and nowhere did it say that man can marry a man or a dog..........

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142705 May 26, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>A constitutional amendment is NOT decided by the voters UNTIL after both the House and Senate vote on a proposal, pass it by 2/3 the majority in each section and pass it for 2 consecutive sessions......so, IT MATTERS NOT HOW MANY INDIVIDUAL STATES HAVE BANS ON THE RIGHT TO MARRY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES!!!!

You might want to read this.....it explains the process of Amending the Constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
correct
And we are close to the numbers for that
Just wait until November..........LOL

Also Mitt could write a EO and ban it nationwide

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142706 May 26, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>They tried to pass the ban on gay marriage in 2004 and 2006 when republicans controlled the presidency, house, and senate and they STILL failed to pass it. LOL
and at that time we had only one state that passed the ban and today the tie has shifted and we now have more than 30

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
News Silicon Valley, Bay Area see huge rise in binge... Fri John Colby PhDud 2
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Apr 21 Matthew_1 115
yellow cab 650---254----1230 24hr open (Jan '09) Apr 19 jie 22
News Pinay nanny wins slavery case in Canada Apr 7 Jennifer LaSalle 1
does anyone need a good dog walker (May '07) Mar '15 chicagodawg 46
does 4-stroke scooter take regular oil Mar '15 styxxx116 1
News German-American International School will move ... Mar '15 Samuel 1
More from around the web

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]