Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,151

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

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142736 May 26, 2012
Bill Of Rights wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah,Lets ask the Confederacy about the Federal Government begging for permission to seize power! LOLOLOL
So you use an example of violating the Constitution by the Federal Government as to somehow support that the Federal Government can do as it pleases?

Remember that the next time the Federal Government decides to say f-you, and you scream freedom.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142737 May 26, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
Gay people need to do everything to get Obama reelected this Nov. If not they will blame us if Obam loses. We can't allow Romney to win under any circumstances.
Why? So Obama can continue to do nothing for you?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142738 May 26, 2012
The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>Look asshat you claim that a state can overlook the Constitution. To change the constitution requires an amendment. But that is not what YOU claim!
No, asshat, you are the one who claims the judicial branch can change the Constitution without the consent of the States.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142739 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you mean to say repeal the 13th Amendment?
<quoted text>
You are hardly one to talk, since you have just suggested that we "appeal the 13th Amendment."
Yawn..

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142740 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly has been held to be a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court, however that damages rather than helps your position because fundamental rights may not be put to a vote.
As for homosexuality being a genetic defect, I would invite you to support that drunken boast by offering any reputable medical, scientific, or academic institution that would endorse your assertion.
Simply saying crap doesn’t make it true, and you don’t have any foundation for the BS you are spewing.
<quoted text>
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
Homosexuals are persons.
You’ve yet to offer a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, as required by the 14th Amendment, that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Well, that was easy.
<quoted text>
I smile, because this is pretty much par for the course for what those opposed to marriage equality can think up, and it is less than stellar.
I sometimes wonder if you ever open your mouth except to change feet.
It is the gay community that claims they were born that way........ROTFLMAO

If that is the case then it must be a genetic defect as it is not normal........LOL

So is it a choice air a defect?????

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#142741 May 26, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Translation: "Caught again, damn, oh well, better to try a feeble argument than admit I was wrong."
<quoted text>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.
<quoted text>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: <quoted text>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.
All that typing for nothing..

The 14th Amendment protects "Citizens"- with the repeal of the 13th the States could once again have slaves, which in turn would no longer qualify as citizens. There would be no need to repeal the 14th as well.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#142742 May 26, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Yawn..
What’s the matter? Ill equipped to provide a rational rebuttal?
Here Is One wrote:
It is the gay community that claims they were born that way........ROTFLMAO
Well, in part because you seem to lack the ability to provide any reputable proof of your assertion, and in part because it is utterly irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Here Is One wrote:
If that is the case then it must be a genetic defect as it is not normal........LOL
Feel free to offer proof from a reputable medical, scientific, or academic organization to that effect that will make you look less foolish. Right now you have offered an assertion which you cannot remotely prove, and which ultimately has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.

Way to make yourself look incompetent.
Here Is One wrote:
So is it a choice air a defect?????
It is irrelevant whether it is a choice or defect (although my challenge stands to substantiate your drunken boast), as it has no bearing upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. If they are persons within a state’s jurisdiction, then they are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

Do you delight in making yourself look foolish? Because you seem to do so with great regularity.
akpilot wrote:
All that typing for nothing..
The 14th Amendment protects "Citizens"- with the repeal of the 13th the States could once again have slaves, which in turn would no longer qualify as citizens. There would be no need to repeal the 14th as well.
Actually, when addressing equal protections, it specifically says that states must provide ALL PERSONS within their jurisdiction, not all citizens, equal protection of the laws.

However, even if your assertion WERE true, and the 14th Amendment only applied to citizens, it would STILL be applicable to homosexuals who were citizens.

Your other argument about reinstating slavery is both inept and irrelevant.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#142743 May 26, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Oslama violated the constitution in oslamacare......LOL
The patriot act
The food safety act.
Oslama says he can tell a state if they can have raw dairy, medical marijuana or even certain guns..........ROTFLMAO
And Yes Mitt could and will if necessary ban at the federal level SSM......
Isn't that why his health care is being challenged.....and he didn't sign an Executive Order to mandate it.

The UNCONSTITUTIONAL Patriot Act was ORIGINALLY signed by George Bush, NOT President Obama, though he did resign it.....nevertheless, it was Bush who put that Illegal act in place....with a few other illegal acts like wire-tapping!!!

Sorry, but the President simply DOESN'T have that kind of power......and therefore by doing it....it would be challenge at SCOTUS and it would lose.....and then you might have something you really don't want......and that's one of the reasons Romney wouldn't do it....but before Romney can do anything.....He has to win.....and that might not happen!!!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142744 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What’s the matter? Ill equipped to provide a rational rebuttal?
<quoted text>
Well, in part because you seem to lack the ability to provide any reputable proof of your assertion, and in part because it is utterly irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
<quoted text>
Feel free to offer proof from a reputable medical, scientific, or academic organization to that effect that will make you look less foolish. Right now you have offered an assertion which you cannot remotely prove, and which ultimately has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.
Way to make yourself look incompetent.
<quoted text>
It is irrelevant whether it is a choice or defect (although my challenge stands to substantiate your drunken boast), as it has no bearing upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. If they are persons within a state’s jurisdiction, then they are entitled to equal protection of the laws.
Do you delight in making yourself look foolish? Because you seem to do so with great regularity.
<quoted text>
Actually, when addressing equal protections, it specifically says that states must provide ALL PERSONS within their jurisdiction, not all citizens, equal protection of the laws.
However, even if your assertion WERE true, and the 14th Amendment only applied to citizens, it would STILL be applicable to homosexuals who were citizens.
Your other argument about reinstating slavery is both inept and irrelevant.
I think it is nothing more than a perversion........Period...... ....LOL

It is the gay community that say they are born that way and can't help it.......

If that is the case then by definition they are born abnormal or with a defect......

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#142745 May 26, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
I think it is nothing more than a perversion........Period...... ....LOL
I didn't ask for your personal opinion. I asked for scientific proof. This response tends to indicate that you lack the capacity to provide such proof of your assertion.
Here Is One wrote:
It is the gay community that say they are born that way and can't help it.......
Here, you are the one making the claim that homosexuality is a choice, ergo it is incumbent upon you to prove your assertion, and it appears that you lack the competence to do so.
Here Is One wrote:
If that is the case then by definition they are born abnormal or with a defect......
Feel free to prove it. I don't think you are able.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142746 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask for your personal opinion. I asked for scientific proof. This response tends to indicate that you lack the capacity to provide such proof of your assertion.
<quoted text>
Here, you are the one making the claim that homosexuality is a choice, ergo it is incumbent upon you to prove your assertion, and it appears that you lack the competence to do so.
<quoted text>
Feel free to prove it. I don't think you are able.
I don't care what you asked for....LOL

The point is and you would know this if you could follow a conversation was that I have said there is no proof that being gay is not a choice.......

But if we ever do find out that there is a "gay" gene it will be called a defect.........Period.....
As by definition it is not normal..........ROTFLMAO

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#142748 May 26, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
I don't care what you asked for....LOL
And, clearly, you do not care about making an intelligent or factually support argument. If you cannot defend your child-like argument, that is hardly my problem.
Here Is One wrote:
The point is and you would know this if you could follow a conversation was that I have said there is no proof that being gay is not a choice.......
Of course whether or not being gay is inherent or a choice is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. This argument is nothing more than a half-baked rationalization.
Here Is One wrote:
But if we ever do find out that there is a "gay" gene it will be called a defect.........Period.....
Science thus far has disagreed with you, a fact which is reinforced by your inability to offer the support of any reputable medical, scientific, or academic institution to support your position. http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our...
Here Is One wrote:
As by definition it is not normal..........ROTFLMAO
Nowhere does the constitution require normalcy to receive equal protection of the laws. In fact it goes so far as to ensure that ALL PERSONS within a state’s jurisdiction are guaranteed such equal protection.

This rationalization is particularly pathetic.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#142750 May 26, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Why? So Obama can continue to do nothing for you?
You mean like repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. How is that "nothing?"
Green Fairy

Laguna Niguel, CA

#142751 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And, clearly, you do not care about making an intelligent or factually support argument. If you cannot defend your child-like argument, that is hardly my problem.
<quoted text>
Of course whether or not being gay is inherent or a choice is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. This argument is nothing more than a half-baked rationalization.
<quoted text>
Science thus far has disagreed with you, a fact which is reinforced by your inability to offer the support of any reputable medical, scientific, or academic institution to support your position. http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our...
<quoted text>
Nowhere does the constitution require normalcy to receive equal protection of the laws. In fact it goes so far as to ensure that ALL PERSONS within a state’s jurisdiction are guaranteed such equal protection.
This rationalization is particularly pathetic.
What do you expect from severely sexually frustrated and emotionally stinted loser like him to say.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#142752 May 26, 2012
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
I AM BLACK. I know more black people than you do, and I know what the black people I know are saying and I know my culture. Black people have not changed their stance on this issue, and those polls are misleading. How many people were samples, and where and when? Everyone who has read those polls says the same thing: SKEWED BY THE GAY ADVOCATES.
If there is so much support, then lets continue putting this gay marriage thing to a vote in the states. What will happen is that 80% or more blacks will vote against it, and at least 30% of whites and 30% of Hispanics will vote against it.
Gay marriage has NEVER been voted for in any state in the United States. Blacks have consistently shown by their voting record on this issue that they do not support it. Homosexuality itself is not supported by blacks or Asians or most Hispanics. Its a fact, and your poll is ridiculous.
Give these figures:
How many people sampled? Where were they sampled? Posting that reveals it to be a sham.
BTW, I am not a Christian or Muslim or part of any organized religion.
you are a ignorant homophobic bigot. Not every single black person is a homophobic bigot like you. obama has changed a lot of people's minds on the issue of marriage equality. In fact more black people support gay marriage than white people. Deal with it.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/20...

Notably among groups, 59 percent of African-Americans in this survey express support for gay marriage - up from 41 percent in combined ABC/Post polls this spring and last summer. Likewise, 65 percent support Obama's new position on the issue. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People announced its support for gay marriage last weekend.

Fewer whites, 46 percent, approve of Obama's announcement, and 50 percent support gay marriage - numerically (albeit not statistically significantly) the fewest since 2010.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#142755 May 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee.... what a strange way to spend your time..... it sounds like you have issues with gay men. Hmmmmmm.......
is dan gay? he claims he is not. but i agree, he most likely is.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#142756 May 26, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And, clearly, you do not care about making an intelligent or factually support argument. If you cannot defend your child-like argument, that is hardly my problem.
<quoted text>
Of course whether or not being gay is inherent or a choice is irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. This argument is nothing more than a half-baked rationalization.
<quoted text>
Science thus far has disagreed with you, a fact which is reinforced by your inability to offer the support of any reputable medical, scientific, or academic institution to support your position. http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our...
<quoted text>
Nowhere does the constitution require normalcy to receive equal protection of the laws. In fact it goes so far as to ensure that ALL PERSONS within a state’s jurisdiction are guaranteed such equal protection.
This rationalization is particularly pathetic.
There is no proof that you are just not a pervert......

There is no proof that you were born that way......

But if proof is ever found by definition it will be a defect in your brain........

Then we can treat it........
Green Fairy

Laguna Niguel, CA

#142759 May 26, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no proof that you are just not a pervert......
There is no proof that you were born that way......
But if proof is ever found by definition it will be a defect in your brain........
Then we can treat it........
So by your logic you choose to be "straight" if you were so secure with yourself then you would care less about who sleeps with whom unless if not with consenting adults.
Green Fairy

Laguna Niguel, CA

#142760 May 26, 2012
Rational Adult wrote:
<quoted text>So, Rose, you are still have anal butt sex with your dad. Rose, you have said that you are only with that fat slob waterwaste because she has a husky dog you have sex with and you continue to have sex with your dad even after he died.
Looks like you can't get laid

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#142761 May 26, 2012
Rational Adult wrote:
Yes, most blacks will not vote for Obama. The CAAP or Coalition of African American Pastors has said that the fools in the NAACP and Obama have been sucking too much cock. It is the CAAP who marched with MLK and they say that MLK would have told gays to go pound sand.
59% of blacks support marriage equality for gay couples. You failed. Black people don't care what a bunch of pastors have to say.
Rational Adult wrote:
It is such a lie anyway and all of us are seeing right through it.
There is no discrimination and hate toward people who have CHOSEN to be gay,
So when did you CHOOSE to be straight?

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.

Studio-City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Help local widow Sheri Christman fight against ... 11 hr Janice Miano 1
Sean and Dana Peden - NEW TV SERIES!!!!! AMAZIN... Wed Troy 2
2 Men Sought In Armed Robbery Of Corona Liquor ... Wed smellyballshasherpes 2
Criminal Defense Attorneys Take on Wendy Segall (May '11) Tue Smokey Joe 10
Review: Anthony Mobasser, DDS - Celebrity Dentist Tue ferguson 1
Business of the Month Tue No real news just... 1
Earthquake Early Warning System gets $5 million... Tue Stefan 1

Studio-City News Video

Studio-City Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Studio-City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Studio-City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Studio-City

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:40 am PST