Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
138,201 - 138,220 of 200,570 Comments Last updated 53 min ago
Heikose

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155984
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

10

9

8

Homosexuality is a pestilence upon mankind.
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155985
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Prof Dingleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
The stats provided were from the FBI.
The FBI says most hate crimes are never reported to police and those that are typically are not categorized as hate crimes by local jurisdictions.
Read it again.
jacques renault

Justice, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155986
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one swears on a bible anymore in Court because it violates the religious freedoms of those who don't believe in God......like Atheists!!!
do you pay attention?

is that what anyone was talking about?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155989
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

freedomfromyou wrote:
Once again, this is NOT a theocracy. And freedom of religion also means freedom from your sick twisted version of Christianity. From the way you people talk you want this country to to become just like the middle east where everyone is bound by old testement laws. Guess what, you would be put to death or jailed by your own standards. I could just get assylum in another country, but it will be fun to watch all of you hypocrite reaping the horrible seeds you have sewn, about 95% of you will die by your own hands
We certainly are heading toward a "theocracy"- though it isn't really a "religion". It is liberalism/progressiveness/and political correctness.

The new religion is the alienation of those whom achieve.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155990
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

jacques renault wrote:
<quoted text>
do you pay attention?
is that what anyone was talking about?
Did you ask this question, "Why don't we swear on a copy of Blackstone before testifying then?"? So, my comment is what it is based on what I thought it meant.

Thanks for playing!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155992
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

thisGuy wrote:
-"LOL And where do you think the "rules of the common law" came from? LOL"
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The COURTS, moron.
"The ancient law of England based upon societal customs and recognized and enforced by the judgments and decrees of the courts. The general body of statutes and case law that governed England and the American colonies prior to the American Revolution.
The principles and rules of action, embodied in case law rather than legislative enactments, applicable to the government and protection of persons and property that derive their authority from the community customs and traditions that evolved over the centuries as interpreted by judicial tribunals."
"Anglo-American common law traces its roots to the medieval idea that the law as handed down from the king's courts represented the common custom of the people. It evolved chiefly from three English Crown courts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: the Exchequer, the King's Bench, and the Common Pleas. These courts eventually assumed jurisdiction over disputes previously decided by local or manorial courts, such as baronial, admiral's (maritime), guild, and forest courts, whose jurisdiction was limited to specific geographic or subject matter areas. Equity courts, which were instituted to provide relief to litigants in cases where common-law relief was unavailable, also merged with common-law courts. This consolidation of jurisdiction over most legal disputes into several courts was the framework for the modern Anglo-American judicial system."
I can do that too:

"The common law of England is not the common law of these states."- George Mason

"What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”- James Madison

"It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs, and common law. There is no principle which pervades the union and has the authority of law that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the union. The common law could be made a part of our system by legislative adoption." WHEATON V. PETERS, 33 U. S. 591 (1834)

“There is no common law of the United States in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.” Justice Matthews, SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U. S. 465 (1888)

"It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs, and common law. There is no principle which pervades the union and has the authority of law that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the union. The common law could be made a part of our system by legislative adoption."- WHEATON V. PETERS, 33 U. S. 591 (1834)
Reality

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155993
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
We certainly are heading toward a "theocracy"- though it isn't really a "religion". It is liberalism/progressiveness/and political correctness.
The new religion is the alienation of those whom achieve.
On that we can agree.
Reality

Madison, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155994
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
thisGuy wrote:
-"LOL And where do you think the "rules of the common law" came from? LOL"
<quoted text>
I can do that too:
The law of the United States consists of many levels[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of constitutional acts of Congress, constitutional treaties ratified by Congress, constitutional regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary.
The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land, thus preempting conflicting state and territorial laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories.[2] However, the scope of federal preemption is limited, because the scope of federal power is itself rather limited. In the unique dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite[3] because of the presence of Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution.[4] Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.[5][6] Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract, tort, property, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.[7][8]
At both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War.[9][10] However, U.S. law has diverged greatly from its English ancestor both in terms of substance and procedure, and has incorporated a number of civil law innovations.
COMMON LAW
That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws.
Traditional law of an area or region; also known as case law. The law created by judges when deciding individual disputes or cases. The body of law which includes both the unwritten law of England and the statutes passed before the settlement of the United States.
In Old England there were two types of Courts - law and equity. In the law court the Judge applied statutes. As time went on situations that were not covered by statutes were uncovered and Judges 'created' law, usually in equity. This is 'common law.'
The U.S. is a common law country. In all states except Louisiana (which is based on the French civil code), the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the state, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise. Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction. Broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law. These areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states and thus state courts are the primary source of common law. Thus,'common law' is used to fill in gaps. Common law changes over time, and at this time, each state has its own common law on many topics. The area of federal common law is primarily limited to federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c070.htm
Mike

Westminster, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155995
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

jacques renault wrote:
<quoted text>
do you pay attention?
is that what anyone was talking about?
She has a problem with comprehention. It's nothing new get used to it, I did .... lol

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155996
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>On that we can agree.
We probably agree on much more than you are willing to admit.
Mike

Westminster, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155997
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
The law of the United States consists of many levels[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of constitutional acts of Congress, constitutional treaties ratified by Congress, constitutional regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary.
The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land, thus preempting conflicting state and territorial laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories.[2] However, the scope of federal preemption is limited, because the scope of federal power is itself rather limited. In the unique dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite[3] because of the presence of Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution.[4] Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.[5][6] Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract, tort, property, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.[7][8]
At both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War.[9][10] However, U.S. law has diverged greatly from its English ancestor both in terms of substance and procedure, and has incorporated a number of civil law innovations.
COMMON LAW
That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws.
Traditional law of an area or region; also known as case law. The law created by judges when deciding individual disputes or cases. The body of law which includes both the unwritten law of England and the statutes passed before the settlement of the United States.
In Old England there were two types of Courts - law and equity. In the law court the Judge applied statutes. As time went on situations that were not covered by statutes were uncovered and Judges 'created' law, usually in equity. This is 'common law.'
The U.S. is a common law country. In all states except Louisiana (which is based on the French civil code), the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the state, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise. Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction. Broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law. These areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states and thus state courts are the primary source of common law. Thus,'common law' is used to fill in gaps. Common law changes over time, and at this time, each state has its own common law on many topics. The area of federal common law is primarily limited to federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c070.htm
STFU
Mike

Westminster, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155998
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter......the fact is that the bible is not a book one places their hand on, nor do they swear to God anymore to tell the whole truth!!!!
I believe in God, I don't believe in a mythical book about stories supposedly written by men in God's name!!!
But you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ?? lol the bible is another book of religious history, one man recording events that took place at the time of Christ is that so hare to understand???
Mike

Westminster, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156001
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter......the fact is that the bible is not a book one places their hand on, nor do they swear to God anymore to tell the whole truth!!!!
I believe in God, I don't believe in a mythical book about stories supposedly written by men in God's name!!!
It doesn't matter It doesn't matter it doesn't matter of course not .. It's people like you who tear this country down to blame for that. I've never seen so many unpatriotic people as I do in thread. God Bless America ...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156002
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
The law of the United States consists of many levels[1]...[edited for space]
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c070.htm
If you haven't noticed, I am not a big fan of "text books". I am not interested in the authors opinion of how they "think" things are.

If I want to know the answer to something I much prefer to go to the source. If I want to know what something in the Constitution means, I prefer to look to the founders, the people who actually drafted it. I look to the Federalist papers, the Madison Journal on the Convention, the letters of those involved, and the State Ratification debates. As far as I am concerned those are the only opinions which matter in the discussion. Isn't it funny that we need text books hundreds of pages long to learn about a document which is merely 4 pages long?

Here is another thing to ponder-
Ever noticed as you read through the opinions of the SCOTUS how many references are made to other's court opinions and how few references are made to the actual document or the words of the men who drafted it?

Again I give the example of the telephone game- that is what case law has done to this country, the further and further away we travel from the drafting of the document, the less and less we hold to its true and actual meaning. By appointing judges whom inject their personal bias (and that goes both ways) into their opinions rather than actually sticking to a strict Constitutional interpretation we hardly have a Constitution at all anymore.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156005
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
She has a problem with comprehention. It's nothing new get used to it, I did .... lol
Sorry doc.....but I comprehend just fine....what people need to get use to is the fact that you're a troll!!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156006
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter It doesn't matter it doesn't matter of course not .. It's people like you who tear this country down to blame for that. I've never seen so many unpatriotic people as I do in thread. God Bless America ...
Yep, don't like my opinion, then blame me for how this Country is......sorry, I'm not responsible for the woes of this Country..........I'm a Veteran and I believe in the Constitution.....not just the parts I like, but defending ALL OF IT, even the parts that allow you to post and speak your mind!!!
EHD or else

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156007
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

I have two questions for Reps. Todd Akin, Paul D. Ryan and all the other fanatical anti-abortion-under-any-circum stances Republican males.

How would they feel and what would they do if it were their wife, daughter, girlfriend or even their mother who was raped and impregnated?

Would they cheerfully and without reproach stand by and watch as their loved one swelled with the spawn of an evil human devil?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156008
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
But you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ?? lol the bible is another book of religious history, one man recording events that took place at the time of Christ is that so hare to understand???
I do believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and have defended both while serving my Country......the bible is NOT even close to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and it is NOTHING more than a book of myths and stories that people are entitled to believe in......and do we truly know if Jesus Christ was "REAL" or just another myth? It's not hard to understand why some need to believe in that book........it's sad at times, but we all need some hope in order to survive life!!!

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156009
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Prof Dingleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
If you and massresistance say so Gary![...]

No one cares what you do you cowardly fat assed bastard.
I've edited down most of Dingleberry's response because most of it is gibberish that teaches us nothing.

I believe I've handily shown, however, Dingleberry's thorough ignorance about the Little Black Book episode.

And what we learned is the following -- but first a bit about the AIDS Action Committee, the publishers of LBB:
AIDS Action Committee, New England's largest AIDS service organization, and Cambridge Cares About AIDS, one of the region's other major AIDS service providers, have merged into a new agency operating under the AIDS Action Committee name. The organizations joined together after nearly two years of strategic planning and stakeholder-led development. The motivation? To transform the way AIDS services are delivered in the Greater Boston area.
On the "Cambridge Cares About AIDS" (CCA) web site we see the "AIDS Action Committee" (AAC) logo on every page. We also learn the following about this combined organization:

1. It openly carries man-boy sex ads on its website:
http://www.ccaa.org/pump.html

2. It provides long-time housing to "qualified" homeless youth.
http://www.ccaa.org/housing.html

3. It operates a drop-in center for boys as young as 14.

I've longed maintained the The Little Black Book was handed out to youth as young as 14 at the CCA-run drop-in center "Youth on Fire." I know this for a fact because I simply called up and asked. It seemed logical to me that the people who published the booklet would be handing it out to the youth they had access to. I was told that it was once handed out to the kids but has since stopped.

The problem is the booklet is admitted by all to be exclusively about "homosexual" sex. This begs the question why on earth was this booklet given to heterosexual boys?

It also begs the question why the AIDS Action Committee has not published a booklet about hetero sex.

Mind you, if it was purely informational in content these questions would not be relevant. But the LBB is not just informational. It is without question literature promoting homosexual sex.

Here's the link; judge for yourself:
http://www.ccaa.org/pump.html

The bottom line is the gay men who run the Boston-area "Youth on Fire" drop-in facility were not only watching runaway boys take hot showers and handing clean towels to dry off afterward, but also placing in their hands literature extolling the virtues of homosexual sex acts such as "rimming, fisting, pee play, anal sex, etc.

And if all that isn't enough, included in the booklet were the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of man-boy hook-up clubs like "Bagley and Peer Action.
http://www.massresistance.info/downloads/Litt...

If you don't know what goes on in these "Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs" please follow the link below:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12b/f...

Meanwhile, pedophile predator defenders like Prof Dingleberry would have us believe the appearance of the LBB at that Brookline high school youth conference was an accident. Why? because the pedos busted handing out the booklets claimed the booklets were brought there by accident, fell off the truck, rolled into the building, and jumped on the display table by themselves.

AAC published the booklet and AAC were the ones busted handing it out to the kids.

The moral of this story is this is the kind of crap you get with same sex marriage. As one Boston gay said after the passage of the law, "Homosexuality is now legal!"

The LGBT wants you to believe same-sex marriage is just about "equality." The LGBT is peeing down your back and calling it rain.

As I've shown, same sex marriage is about unfettered access to boys.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156011
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

I guess the previous question was too scary to answer. Here is another thought;

In defense of calling gay unions marriage, the assertion is made that children are not a requirement for marriage.

A unbelievably stupid statement! It amazes me that people have the audacity to even make it.

The first indication of how stupid it is the fact that it comes from gay couples that have ZERO potential to procreate.

The second is the reason no one makes that demand. The 'demand' for children isn't there because the likelihood is so strong, it is and has always been assumed in marriage.

Its like someone asserting for gays to be in a gay union they are required NOT to have children. Why bother with such a unnecessary question?

Remember the nursery rhyme?
Jack and Jill sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First comes love.
Then comes marriage.
Then comes a baby in the baby carriage!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 4 hr air mail 7,924
Trouble sleeping: a warning sign of suicide in ... Wed Pharma Maims Kills 8
Beam me up Scottie Wed guest 121
Tongan shot in US, grateful to Chinese Navy sur... Wed Zorri 12
Neil Young files for divorce from Pegi Young Tue Antioch 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Tue matches lighters 15,961
Camden, TN. Topix Moderator (Aug '13) Mon Mavis 11
•••

Redwood City News Video

•••
•••

Redwood City Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••