Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,169

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: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#150694 Jul 16, 2012
Bruno wrote:
Awww ... somebody didn"t get andy dick last night ...
How would you know that Bruno?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150695 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The "whatever" was in reply to your comment, not anything the court said.
My comment WAS a quote from the court you idiot.

Your response was "whatever", hence you simply choose to ignore any fact which does not agree with your fantasy.

You love to refute any factual statement by simply say- Red Herring.

I got one for you Rose- Confirmation Bias- You suffer from a severe case of it.
Reality

Madison, WI

#150696 Jul 16, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know that Bruno?
Peeping Bruno. Next time throw some back into it and show him how its done.
Reality

Madison, WI

#150697 Jul 16, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
gay parades did the same here
Once gays had SSM they went crazy.
They tried to force their way into churches
They had sex on the beach and in many cases on the street
They would fondle each others in stores an restaurants
They blew it and the straight community fought back and now they are regulated even more than before SSM
The same thing is happening around the USA
When California voted to ban SSM the gays thought it would never happen in another state
Today we have more than 30 that ban SSM
Give them enough rope and they have hung them self
Do you find Nude Bike ride day equally revoulting?

http://www.google.com/imgres...
Reality

Madison, WI

#150698 Jul 16, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
My comment WAS a quote from the court you idiot.
Your response was "whatever", hence you simply choose to ignore any fact which does not agree with your fantasy.
You love to refute any factual statement by simply say- Red Herring.
I got one for you Rose- Confirmation Bias- You suffer from a severe case of it.
Does this comment ring a bell?

"Interesting, you never seem to be able to refute anything I say, just continue with your childish banter. Perhaps it's time you moved from your parents basement?" Amazing simply amazing.
Yappers

Monrovia, CA

#150699 Jul 16, 2012
A new day and new bunch of B.S. - so keep the yapping alive and real.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150700 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you are upset because you can't come up with a good argument against gay marriage, so feel free to fk off.
<quoted text>
I pass gas that is better educated than you are.
Is that your best Rose??

I never made an argument against "same sex marriage" you idiot, I couldn't care less if they get married. The issue is your fantasy that the Constitution somehow requires its acceptance by society.

This is your problem Rose, you are incapable of critical thinking, you cannot argue a point outside of your already selected talking points. Without terms like- homophobe, condumb, and racist you are completely lost.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150701 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dummy, you need to calm down, and quit foaming at the mouth whenever you see my name! Read what I actually posted. I didn't mention slavery.
I read what you wrote, and you are the one foaming at the mouth. This happens most often when one realizes they have lost the debate, that's when they become louder and more asinine in their comments.

You are the one who seems to think everything relates to slavery and black suppression in this country- newsflash Rose, it doesn't.
Still Bill for Equality

Dublin, CA

#150702 Jul 16, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>Google Obamas birth certificate, you will find a link to the government/white house. The man is a natural born citizen
Your wish is my command buddy! Here you go! The guy is an obvious idiot conspiracy theorist and a first class nut job,not to mention the state of Hawaii has already made his official Birth cirtificate available to the public! But waaay off topic none the less!LOL

Obama is a U.S. citizen
www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthc...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150703 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The founding fathers allowed slavery, but didn't allow women to vote. Fk what they had in mind, they are all fossilized worm poop by now.
Thank's for proving my point Rose.

Again, everything doesn't have to do with slavery.
Let vote again

Monrovia, CA

#150704 Jul 16, 2012
Opponents of a law that requires California public schools to teach the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Has once again failed to qualify a California stat ballot measure to overturned this requirement.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#150705 Jul 16, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Several states have already put laws in place that make define marriage as a union between opposite sexes. If your position is these laws will be stricken down because same-sex marriage causes no harm, you need to pull your head out of either your own as or your boyfriend's.
You have no legal standing.
You're a sex cult masquerading as a minority.
That's all.
You meant to say several states have laws thst restrict marriages between men and women only.

Idiot. Don't make it sound like it's a movement because it's not.

And WTF do you know about my "position"???- You've been so busy spouting bullshit and lies you don't know my position.

Here it is. Get out your Big Chief notebeook and a number 2 pencil so you don't miss it.

I too was vehemently against gay marriage. Though it mentally dicked up little kiddies and was unnecessary as making a National Vaseline Day where the nation would stop and thank the makers of that fine petroleum jelly for all it's multiple uses.

Found out it didn't affect children, including those in gay families care and it was necessary given the gays we're talking about are FELLOW (understand the word now)....fellow American citizens whom are due their full set of rights and liberties if we're to claim we abide by the Constitution and the land we live in.

Now...believe it or not I too don't like gay parades, men in tights, tansgendered characters or gay marriage. No shit. But on the other hand I don't l;ike fat, greast rednecks marrying whales for wsives telling the rest of the country on how to live. We all have our thing. You probably less given you're an anti-social weirdo but we do. Some gays may just give me the finger for stating I don't like their marriages but that STILL does not give me righteousness to stop their path to freedoms.

There's just as many good gays out there in percentages than there are "good" heterosexuals (I'm not one of them but I know they exist). They're your fellow citizens shitass. And they're truly none of your God damned business. You're just not gettging it and as I see one state to the next allow their marriages I will feel b etter that we live in a free country our Founding Fathers not only created but where thousands upon thousands of brave men and women died for.

Freedom. Maybe you don't like the word. Move to another country. Some stone gays. Live there. This isn't where you want to be Chief.

And "my boyfriend". My wife would be the first to kick your ass for calling her that...all I'd need to do is bag what was left and haul you to the curb for trash day.

Get lost. Seriously. You've got 3 choices in socialization from what I've seen. Banter in the internet as some freakish registered troll as you have for years. Try to talk to the clewrk who bags your groceries who no doubt mov es faster than he ever did in his part time career given he wants you gone to or join the KKK. They share your beliefs.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150706 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
NATURAL born, not NATIVE born. They are two different things. NATURAL born means you were a citizen at the time of your birth. NATIVE born means you were born on US soil. Again, notice the Constitution says NATURAL born. You can be a NATURAL born citizen if one of your parents is a US citizen at the time of your birth, even if you were born on the Moon.
Hmm, let's take a look at the history of the writing of Article 2 Sec 2.

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later)- John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay)- The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts

http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt

Need more???

"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. 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 & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."-- James Madison to George Washington 1787

Still not enough??

The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."

"The reasoning in the letter of our late envoys to France is so fully supported by the writers on the law of nations, particularly by Vattel....." John Adams 1801 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php ...

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”- John Bingham 1866 ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)

"The law of nations requires every national government to use 'due diligence' to prevent a wrong being done within its own dominion to another nation with which it is at peace, or to the people thereof; and because of this, the obligation of one nation to punish those who, within its own jurisdiction, counterfeit the money of another nation has long been recognized. Vattel in his Law of Nations...." U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

Need more proof Law Of Nations was refering to Vattel???

Ok-- "To evince the contrary let us recur to the writers on the laws of Nations on the subject.](Vattel, vol. i. p. 105. book 1. chap. 21. sec. 260." Continental Congress August 1786 ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150707 Jul 16, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
NATURAL born, not NATIVE born. They are two different things. NATURAL born means you were a citizen at the time of your birth. NATIVE born means you were born on US soil. Again, notice the Constitution says NATURAL born. You can be a NATURAL born citizen if one of your parents is a US citizen at the time of your birth, even if you were born on the Moon.
<quoted text>
But not so dumb I don't know the difference between natural and native born.
<quoted text>
You're just upset you have a black president. LOL @ you.
More you Say??
Ok-- "The first Question is settled by Vattel in the following Paragraph, vizt--." John Jay 1785 ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)

Still not enough??
"In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers--Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender"-- Record of Federal COnvention 1787- Madison ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)

Had enough yet??

How about a few more..

"The first principle of government is founded on the natural rights of individuals, and in perfect equality. Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, and Dr. Priestly, all confirm this principle"- Record of the Federal Convention 1787 ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)

"I am in Want of the following Books from Messr Jackson & Dunn, & wish to know whether I must send the others to Phila., or deliver them to any Friend of those Gentlemen here. The Books wanted are Vattel's Law of Nations...." Elbridge Gerry to Timothy Pickering 1785-- http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D ...::

"Dear Sir York in Pennsylvania Novr 8. 1777 The following Books are much wanted by some Gentlemen of Congress, & are not to be procured in this Place; if they are to be found in the Pennsylvania Library, which We are informed is removed by Order of your Excellency to Lancaster, I shall be much obliged to You for the Loan thereof being with respect your Excellency's very huml sert,(1) E Gerry

Vattell's Law of Nations" Elbridge Gerry to Thomas Wharton ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D ...::)

Hmm, why would Congress be so interested in getting this book by Vattel if he was so inconsequential to the writting of the US Constitution?? I mean wouldn't they already know British Common law and have no need for Vattel if in fact our laws were based solely on Common Law as you claim??

Need some more??

"I will proceed on first principls. every man out of society is equal, in Freedom, & every other quality of man--Lock, Vattel, & others prove this position" -- Record of he Federal Convention 1787 ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations."-- Charles William Frederic Dumas 1780
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D ...::

Doesn't get much more evident than this that when the Law of Nations was referenced it meant VATTEL!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#150708 Jul 16, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank's for proving my point Rose.
Again, everything doesn't have to do with slavery.
It has to do with equal rights.

And don't come back with the samed bullshit line that gays can marry...thery just need to find an opposite sexed partner. It's the same as someone in the 50's adsvising blacks can use the bus system...they just need to ride in hte back.

You're a punk. You'll always be a punk. The beauty in it no one has to kick your ass. You do that to yourself.

I'll bet you my ENTIRE softball collection my world is more full than your angry ass will ever know.

So go on. Judge and hate. Point and discriminate. Glare and angrily pontificate.

--That was a fail. No songwriting in my career anyways...LOL!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150709 Jul 16, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>Does this comment ring a bell?
"Interesting, you never seem to be able to refute anything I say, just continue with your childish banter. Perhaps it's time you moved from your parents basement?" Amazing simply amazing.
Hey idiot, there was nothing to refute in the post I replied to, much like yours it was a waste of bandwidth. No pertinent facts were presented, hence there is nothing to debate.

If you care to present something for argument do so, otherwise you are simply an idiot looking for attention, much like Rose, Dan, and the Prof Guy.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150710 Jul 16, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
It has to do with equal rights.
They are equal, everyone across the board- Heterosexual, Homosexual, White, Black, Asian, Polygamist, Italian, Cuban, Mexican........ Can all marry one person of the opposite sex, and not one of them can marry someone of the same sex. All are created equal.

The court has also affirmed this- Hernandez v Robles

But I guess that court was packed with a bunch of homophobic idiots because they didn't agree with you.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#150711 Jul 16, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry I don't have a fear of humans
Try again.
Silly girl. Homophobia is a fear of being perceived as gay. That's why you try to act all butch and macho... but there's no danger of you winning an Oscar. Science has proved that 4 out of 5 vocal homophobes are secretly gay. So instead of fooling anyone, you gave away your little secret.
Buzzed tower

Monrovia, CA

#150712 Jul 16, 2012
Ak - you didn't make your medical, your grounded for life!
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#150713 Jul 16, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
More you Say??
Ok-- "The first Question is settled by Vattel in the following Paragraph, vizt--." John Jay 1785 ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)
Still not enough??
"In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers--Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender"-- Record of Federal COnvention 1787- Madison ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)
Had enough yet??
How about a few more..
"The first principle of government is founded on the natural rights of individuals, and in perfect equality. Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, and Dr. Priestly, all confirm this principle"- Record of the Federal Convention 1787 ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)
"I am in Want of the following Books from Messr Jackson & Dunn, & wish to know whether I must send the others to Phila., or deliver them to any Friend of those Gentlemen here. The Books wanted are Vattel's Law of Nations...." Elbridge Gerry to Timothy Pickering 1785-- http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D ...::
"Dear Sir York in Pennsylvania Novr 8. 1777 The following Books are much wanted by some Gentlemen of Congress, & are not to be procured in this Place; if they are to be found in the Pennsylvania Library, which We are informed is removed by Order of your Excellency to Lancaster, I shall be much obliged to You for the Loan thereof being with respect your Excellency's very huml sert,(1) E Gerry
Vattell's Law of Nations" Elbridge Gerry to Thomas Wharton ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D ...::)
Hmm, why would Congress be so interested in getting this book by Vattel if he was so inconsequential to the writting of the US Constitution?? I mean wouldn't they already know British Common law and have no need for Vattel if in fact our laws were based solely on Common Law as you claim??
Need some more??
"I will proceed on first principls. every man out of society is equal, in Freedom, & every other quality of man--Lock, Vattel, & others prove this position" -- Record of he Federal Convention 1787 ( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage ...)
"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations."-- Charles William Frederic Dumas 1780
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D ...::
Doesn't get much more evident than this that when the Law of Nations was referenced it meant VATTEL!!!
I agree with Rose.
The founders thought women were too stupid to be allowed to vote and that slavery was ok. Hardly shining examples of morality. Besides, it's 2012. They've all been dead for over 200 years.

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.

Wilmington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Chuck 19,553
Long Beach man faces federal child-trafficking ... (Jul '13) 4 hr Ronald 5
Long Beach City Council approves renaming park ... 5 hr Howard D 4
Manhattan Beach to vote on FAA airspace plan (Oct '10) 5 hr Voter 23
How to fix police-black distrust 5 hr Ronald 6
Review: Cityline Mobile Auto Glass 6 hr johnnywalker345 1
Bill Widmer named new Rancho Palos Verdes city ... 6 hr Are you serious 1

Wilmington News Video

Wilmington Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Wilmington People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Wilmington News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Wilmington

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:34 pm PST