Prop 8 ruling: Same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, federal appeals court rules | 89.3 KPCC

Yeah, because they're "activist judges" don'tcha know... :eyeroll:

You betcha....

Sorry just had to....

Well, actually, kazutam, they just affirmed that the Constitution means absolutely EVERYTHING!

You have now just told the entire country that a vote of the people means absolutely NOTHING.

It should mean nothing if it is a vote on some one else's rights.

And a little thing called Equal Protection Under the Law.

You have now just told the entire country that a vote of the people means absolutely NOTHING.

This affirms that the system we have is actually working. The system started with law, a referendum was put up and voted on to reverse that law, that in turn was taken to court. One side proved it's case and now it will eventually go to the highest court in the land and on it's merits stands a better than 50% chance of holding up. There is no constitutional reason to discriminate on this issue. Gay marriage does not negatively impact society regardless of anyone's personal feelings.

I hope this opens up a huge can of worms here in Colorado.

A vote of the people that restricts the right of other people should mean absolutely nothing.

Loretta, the reason I mention Colorado is because Colorado law mirrors California law in a lot of ways, this could become a very hot topic now in this state.

If they appeal to SCOTUS as they've vowed to do and SCOTUS upholds this decision, it will become the law of the land and will impact every state.

Hopefully marriage equality will be a reality in the near future when Proposition hate is finally defeated.

A vote of the people that restricts the right of other people should mean absolutely nothing.

So tell me how you feel about sex offender laws? They restrict the rights of people. The point is that we have to demonstrate how having that law benefit society. In this case of gay marriage it hasn't been proved. In the case of sex offenders it has.

When did they prove that allowing blacks or women to vote was a benefit to society?

I can't believe you are comparing gay rights to the rights of sex offenders.

evil- Very silly comment. Sex offenders are criminals because they force sex onto people who have not or cannot give consent. OTOH, marriage is legal among consenting adults. There is absolutely no reason for a law to prove that it will benefit society, it only has to pass Constitutional scrutiny. Discriminating against gays will not pass, as they are citizens and require the same rights as any other law-abiding citizen. See the difference?

on the contrary there is no conclusive evidence that any restrictions made on sex offenders actually benefits anybody. Sex offenders are more likely to attack persons they know and usually are related to. One would be hard pressed to find any evidence to suggest that making a sex offender live 2500 feet from a school or have their picture on some web site or in a database actually prevented him from doing harm.

So "local standards" mean nothing now, right?

THAT is in effect what you are saying, that folks who live in a location have NO right to determine what standards they wish their community to have.

Nope it is the federal government who gets to decide what EVERYONE's standards will now be.

Be very careful what you ask for people.................you just might get it.

You have now just told the entire country that a vote of the people means absolutely NOTHING.

simply securing 51% of the vote doesn't make the subject right, just, moral, ethical, legal, or constitutional.

The "vote of the people" to pass a law does indeed mean nothing if the raison d'être for that law cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

FTA:

"Even the most conservative judge ... Randy Smith, kept asking the attorney who was defending Prop 8, 'Please give me some legitimate government interest for why you want to prohibit gay marriage,'..."

The Prop 8 proponents failed before the Circuit Court just as they failed before Judge Vaughn Walker.

I would urge you to read this latest ruling, the Walker ruling and the intervening Ware ruling.

But never fear - backers of Prop 8 plan on trouping over to the 9th Circuit panel, and then on to SCOTUS. And there's always the possibility of an amendment to the United States Constitution.

trm:

I can't believe you are comparing gay rights to the rights of sex offenders.

Unfortunately, in the eyes of many, they are one and the same. I'm surprised no one has yet brought up the subject of sheep.

You have now just told the entire country that a vote of the people means absolutely NOTHING.

Peoples' votes shouldn't be able to unconstitutionally strip others of their rights. This IS America, remember?

THAT is in effect what you are saying, that folks who live in a location have NO right to determine what standards they wish their community to have.

Not if it violates the civil rights of a class of people.

@3.12

When did they prove that allowing blacks or women to vote was a benefit to society?

They never did, which was a basis for granting rights.

I can't believe you are comparing gay rights to the rights of sex offenders.

I used it to illustrate the point that we do restrict the rights of some people by law and there has to be a compelling reason why. We should restrict the rights of sex offenders, because they harm others and rates of reoffending are high. We should not restrict the rights of gays because no one has shown a compelling argument we should. This is the system we have and it works.

I think I understand your comment now. We should allow gays to marry because we haven't proven that there is any reason to restrict their rights. Is that what you meant?

I used it to illustrate the point that we do restrict the rights of some people by law and there has to be a compelling reason why. We should restrict the rights of sex offenders, because they harm others and rates of reoffending are high. We should not restrict the rights of gays because no one has shown a compelling argument we should. This is the system we have and it works.

The lightbulb just went off in my head, evil. Thanks for the clarification!

Yes, trm2008!

Your welcome YaddaYadda.

kazutam

You have now just told the entire country that a vote of the people means absolutely NOTHING.

Do you think that we should be able to get together and decide that people who look like you should have no rights? Would that be ok with you? Or should we be required to have a good reason to take away your rights before being allowed to do so? Would "we don't like you" be a good enough reason? Or should we have to show how you having rights somehow harms the rest of us?

So "local standards" mean nothing now, right?

You do realize that all of us...the entire country...are protected by the Constitution, right? And that the whole point and purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect individuals and minorities from the ignorance and violence of mob rule? Local standards still have to be constitutional as long as they are in this country.

THAT is in effect what you are saying, that folks who live in a location have NO right to determine what standards they wish their community to have.

Community? We are talking about the State of California here...with a population roughly equal to the entire country of Canada. This isn't the local bridge club. And no...no community has the right to pass unconstitutional laws. You can pass any laws you want....but they have to be constitutional.

Nope it is the federal government who gets to decide what EVERYONE's standards will now be.

You are only displaying a colossal lack of understanding basic civics. Didn't you take this in school? The judiciary's job is to decide whether challenged laws are constitutional...this one isn't. It's part of the balance of powers. The government didn't have anything to do with it.

Be very careful what you ask for people.................you just might get it.

In this case...this is excellent advice and you should take it. You are advocating a straight democracy where a majority vote can take away your rights at any time, instead of a Constitutional Republic that protects your rights and mine...and everyone else's.

So "local standards" mean nothing now, right?

THAT is in effect what you are saying, that folks who live in a location have NO right to determine what standards they wish their community to have.

Not if those standards violate the Constitution.

evilgenius wrote:

So tell me how you feel about sex offender laws? They restrict the rights of people. The point is that we have to demonstrate how having that law benefit society.

Actually, with respect to rights and liberties, exactly the opposite is the case. The state must show a legitimate interest (a really good reason) why the liberty should be restricted. In the case of sex offenders, the state has shown such interest in the form of harm to others.

Conversely, defendantd in every state level same-sex marriage case to date has failed to establish such an interest.

So tell me how you feel about sex offender laws? They restrict the rights of people.

Causing harm to others is not a right. Laws against sex offenders is not a restriction of their rights, because no one has the right to harm others. No one has the right to rape or molest children, ever. It is not a right. This is a really bad, horrible, analogy. It causes more harm to the fight for equal rights than Prop 8.

NotKidding

Do you think that we should be able to get together and decide that people who look like you should have no rights? Would that be ok with you?

To be honest, I wish that there HAD of been a vote before many of my rights were stripped away.

See I have seen thru my life that folks that "look like me" ARE denied "equal coverage under the law". I am talking about "race" trumping merit in hiring, college admissions, promotions, and many other aspects of life.

There was NO vote on that, there were simply federal government rulings and whining from folks like yourself.

Pulling the "poor white guy" card? LOL

Your completely correct Dennis. I stated it baddly (I didn't get a lot of sleep last night...lol), but that's the idea I was trying to get across.

Nope it is the federal government who gets to decide what EVERYONE's standards will now be.

Um, this has been the case since 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. All States have to follow the US Constitution. As long as they do that they are free to do whatever else they want.

So tell me how you feel about sex offender laws? They restrict the rights of people. The point is that we have to demonstrate how having that law benefit society.

Actually, with respect to rights and liberties, exactly the opposite is the case. The state must show a legitimate interest (a really good reason) why the liberty should be restricted.

How is that the opposite of what he said? You guys seem to be saying basically the same thing - that no law should exist if there isn't a good reason for having it.

Tim S.-560036 @ 2.8 -

Have you read my other posting or just the one you commented on. You're totally missing my point. Child molesters bad - restrict their right to live and work with children. Gay marriage not bad - no case has been made to restrict any rights.

So for all of the folks who have been attempting to "take me to task" for my original comment in #3.

I take it that this means that y'all had NO OBJECTIONS to the actions of the supreme court in 2000 concerning the vote in Florida?

THAT was a federal court over-ruling what many felt to be a "vote of the people".

So does a "vote of the people" mean something anymore in this country? or not?

So for all of the folks who have been attempting to "take me to task" for my original comment in #3.

I take it that this means that y'all had NO OBJECTIONS to the actions of the supreme court in 2000 concerning the vote in Florida?

THAT was a federal court over-ruling what many felt to be a "vote of the people".

So does a "vote of the people" mean something anymore in this country? or not?

I don't. We don't elect Presidents by popular vote either. There is a reason for the Electoral College and a Representative Democracy and I've not heard a compelling reason to change it yet.

We don't elect Presidents by popular vote either.

You are correct we don't. Electoral College votes are determined by the popular vote.

THAT is what the complaints were about, that the electoral college votes should have gone to Gore rather than to Bush because of the "popular vote" totals, or what folks thought they were.

A difference in the ruling could have/would have swung the election and changed the outcome.

evil...i think i'm in love...

Marquis de Laffayette wrote:

How is that the opposite of what he said? You guys seem to be saying basically the same thing - that no law should exist if there isn't a good reason for having it.

Yes, we are saying essentially the same thing. I read a bit too fast at first and picked up on the "benefit to society" phrase, which many opponents of same-sex marriage have mistakenly asserted is required in order for same-sex marriage to be legal.

Anyway, no harm no foul.

THAT is what the complaints were about, that the electoral college votes should have gone to Gore rather than to Bush because of the "popular vote" totals, or what folks thought they were.

While I may agree or disagree with a ruling, I don't disagree with the mechanics of the system. You seem to disagree with the whole process and want to go straight to rule by popular opinion.

evil...i think i'm in love...

What's not to love? ;)

You seem to disagree with the whole process and want to go straight to rule by popular opinion.

Not really, I just think that people should have the right to determine how things are in their area.

Call it a "states rights" type of deal if you have to label it.

After all that process has worked quite well in the past, allowing states to determine what is and is not acceptable to them.

Look at Nevada, what other state has legal prostitution?

Or gambling, that is determined on a state by state basis.

Or even interstate speed limits. I think it's Montana that doesn't really have an upper limit, just whatever is "safe" for the conditions.

In one of the weirder cases you have Cincinnati, where "male reviews" are legal yet "strip clubs" are not inside the city, or at least it was that way when I left there in 1990.

Or are folks saying that "the people" can't be trusted to determine what is acceptable to them and what isn't now?

Does this ruling now mean that "blue(alcohol) laws" in ALL states can now be challenged and made to fit a single federal standard?

We have already seen waffling by the feds on medical marijuana laws being voted in around the country.

So which is it? Are the "federal laws" all powerful and trump everything else? Or do states have a voice in how things go in their own state?

Not really, I just think that people should have the right to determine how things are in their area.

They do. Other's also have the right to redress perceived wrongs. In this case the wronged won their case, and the court ruled for them. The defenders of Prop 8 failed to provide a compelling reason to the court to not to. "We don't like it" isn't a sound legal strategy.

So which is it? Are the "federal laws" all powerful and trump everything else? Or do states have a voice in how things go in their own state?

In nearly all cases Federal Law does trump State Law. Are we one nation or 50 states?

Not really, I just think that people should have the right to determine how things are in their area.

Call it a "states rights" type of deal if you have to label it.

After all that process has worked quite well in the past, allowing states to determine what is and is not acceptable to them.

States do not have a right to violate the Constitution.

Look at Nevada, what other state has legal prostitution?

Or gambling, that is determined on a state by state basis.

Or even interstate speed limits. I think it's Montana that doesn't really have an upper limit, just whatever is "safe" for the conditions.

In one of the weirder cases you have Cincinnati, where "male reviews" are legal yet "strip clubs" are not inside the city, or at least it was that way when I left there in 1990.

Prostitution, gambling, speed limits (BTW, there is an upper speed limit in MT now), male reviews and strip clubs do not deal with civil rights and are not constitutional issues.

Or are folks saying that "the people" can't be trusted to determine what is acceptable to them and what isn't now?

It isn't about what is or is not acceptable to any given group of people. It is about what is or is not Constitutional

Does this ruling now mean that "blue(alcohol) laws" in ALL states can now be challenged and made to fit a single federal standard?

We have already seen waffling by the feds on medical marijuana laws being voted in around the country.

Again, alcohol and drug use are not Constitutional issues. (Except as Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment)

So which is it? Are the "federal laws" all powerful and trump everything else?

The Constitution trumps everything else.

Or do states have a voice in how things go in their own state?

As long as "how things go" is not a violation of Constitutional protections.

FINALLY LOCAL CONTROL IS RESTORED... as many know prop 8 was funded by outsiders from Utah, nosing into others lives banning gay marriage in a different state..

THIS RESTORES LOCAL CONTROL by CALIFORNIANS who had prop hate forced upon them by outsiders

The difference, kaz, is that in gambling, prostitution, etc. no one is systematically trying to deny a basic civil right to just one group. In the gay marriage situation that is exactly what they are doing. Gambling and prostitution are not constitutional issues, while the denial of civil rights IS a constitutional issue. So, in that case, no, you should not be able to decide in your area. Either we all have civil rights or we do not. To use your analogies it would be the same as saying that only blue-eyed blondes can gamble and only males over 6 feet tall could visit prostitutes. That would be discrimination and you could not make those kinds of laws. States and in some cases cities can decide on many issues, as long as those laws or statutes apply equally to everyone. This is not the case with gay marriage. With this issue some are saying that only one group should have that right and it should be denied to another group for no compelling reason other than pandering to people's prejudice. This is EXACTLY the kind of case the courts were created to decide upon, and it is why the founding fathers created a republic and not a straight democracy. You want to have your city or state decide on gambling? Great--that's not about anyone's rights. You want to decide to deny a group it's right based on nothing more than religion and/or prejudice. No, you don't get to do that. And you should be very thankful for that, as should everyone who's complaining. Because if we could all just vote on everyone else's rights then maybe your rights would be the next ones we decide to eliminate.

So "local standards" mean nothing now, right?

The Constitution applies to all levels, from the folks in DC voting for laws on the national scale to the smallest town council. It's not that "local standards" mean nothing, just that they're not an excuse to go against the Constitutional ideals of equal protection just because
it's just a few people in a small town/state."

THAT is in effect what you are saying, that folks who live in a location have NO right to determine what standards they wish their community to have.

They have every right to determine such things...as long as they don't do so in a way that disregards the Constitution. If they don't like the foundation of American law, they have the options of either convincing the rest of us that changing the Constitution to their "standards" is a good idea, or moving somewhere else where other people have established "local standards" more in line with their thinking.

If this moves all the way to the SCOTUS, and likely it will, what of DOMA? Have the SCOTUS ruled on that or will it have any play on this Prop 8 ruling by the 9th?

I'm totally thrilled the 9th upheld the lower courts' ruling on this. I can't think of a single reason why anyone should have less rights than me. Why shouldn't two adults that love each other have the right to marry each other? What their genders are aren't an issue, and never should be.

See I have seen thru my life that folks that "look like me" ARE denied "equal coverage under the law". I am talking about "race" trumping merit in hiring, college admissions, promotions, and many other aspects of life.

Are you serious?

There was NO vote on that, there were simply federal government rulings and whining from folks like yourself.

Well I can honestly say I've never once whined about affirmative action, and I don't agree with all of it, but I can certainly see the reasoning behind it and the need for it. Particularly when there are still people like you who think your imaginary "rights" were taken away because of it.

It might have made the playing field a little more level....more disadvantages were balanced out with more opportunities...but it didn't take any rights from any of us. There is no "right" to be judged/hired/accepted/promoted solely on merit. The boss's son in law get promoted and his nephew gets hired and the rich kids get into any college they want as long as daddy writes a check. Merit has nothing to do with it...and affirmative action isn't the cause of your failures.

Or are folks saying that "the people" can't be trusted to determine what is acceptable to them and what isn't now?

Have you read the Constitution? The founders enshrined equality and basic rights in the Constitution...precisely so that "the people" can't just vote away the rights of others...even if they find them "unacceptable".

If you really think people should be able to give or take rights away from others, based on a show of hands...then...how about we take away a real right from you? Like your right to marry? Or your right to free speech? Or your right to (gasp) own a gun? Just because we find something about you.....unacceptable? If all the people in your community vote and the majority decides to remove your rights...then you are ok with that?

Or would you rather your rights were protected, no matter what other people thought? Would you rather that they be inviolate, or subject to the whims of the people around you? Your support of completely abandoning the Constitution demonstrates very nicely exactly why "the people" can't be trusted to protect the rights of others.

Particularly when there are still people like you who think your imaginary "rights" were taken away because of it.

Typical.

Because I don't agree with YOUR viewpoint, my rights become "imaginary" suddenly.

That's perfectly fine, keep it up.

Let's drop the standards because a passing grade is "racially biased".

Let's continue the "hiring quota's".

Let's decide to continue to say that "merit" means nothing and that diversity trumps all.

And then wonder why this country continues it's downhill slide.................

Another false accusation:

We should restrict the rights of sex offenders, because they harm others and rates of re offending are high.

Re-offense rates of Sex offenders are only 5.3% and Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43% of sex offenders versus 68% of non-sex offenders.

Kazutam: So, since you think it okay to deny civil rights of others just because they're in the minority, when whites are no longer the majority in this country (and it's coming fast), does that mean that you'd be okay if the new majority takes YOUR rights away simply because you happen to be white? How about if the majority of the country were gay? Would it be okay for them to take away your right to get married for no other reason than you're straight? I hate to tell you, you're in the minority on this issue. Most people in this country believe in marriage equality. Not by a huge margin, true, but by a majority.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521

The point is, if it wouldn't be fair for you or your group, then it isn't fair for anyone else, either. We have this little thing called EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. And it should apply to EVERYONE, not just those who look, think, act, or believe the same way you do.

Because I don't agree with YOUR viewpoint, my rights become "imaginary" suddenly.

To stay on topic here...(sorry Loretta) do you think gays have the right to marry the non-related consenting adult of their choice....just as the rest of us do? Or is that an imaginary right because you don't agree with it?

After all that process has worked quite well in the past, allowing states to determine what is and is not acceptable to them.

This is a joke right? Seriously, this is a joke. States Powers at this level have failed miserably starting with the Articles of Confederation that resulted in the need for a rewrite we call the Constitution. It failed with slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and more examples than I care to count.

Human and civil rights are not subject to simple majority rule. It is very hard to meet the requirements to changes these legally because they require a change to the Constitution. This is to protect the minority from the whims of the majority and was designed this way on purpose by the founders. Let me guess, I bet you consider yourself a strict constructionist, too. And yet you fail to see the irony.

It should never have been put to a vote. (see comment 3.3)

Well maybe they shouldn't vote to violate the Constitution or peoples civil and human rights.

Neither you nor your sister nor anyone else has the right to infringe on the rights of others without overwhelmingly compelling reasons. The sooner you and they stop trying to make second class humans out of other groups the sooner your bigoted votes will stop being over turned.

There's this little thing called Equal Protection Under the Law.

Yeah, unless you're gay.

The "majority" can be wrong too! No where does it say that majorities are always right. Many awful things have happened under the approval of the majority, most often directed towards a minority. Jim Crow was once considered not just the norm in the South, but it was considered to be Gods word, taught in Gods pews as the way God intended the order of things to be.

Civil rights aren't determined by majority.

Rightfully so, unless you're too dull witted to see the implications.

The appointed (not elected) judiciary is there for JUST THIS PURPOSE, to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.

Excellent call.

Listen Tim S.....my post said "my sister use to say...." She died last June of breast cancer, so leave her out of it. Nowhere did I say agree or disagree! You know what they say about assumptions!

My sister made reference to other rulings in CA.

so leave her out of it.

To be fair, you are the one who introduced her into the discussion.

Listen Tim S.....my post said "my sister use to say...." She died last June of breast cancer, so leave her out of it. Nowhere did I say agree or disagree! You know what they say about assumptions!

My sister made reference to other rulings in CA.

Sorry for your loss but you brought your sister into it. And you're being disingenuous about your post. If you didn't mean it about this ruling then why even bring it up?

To be fair, you are the one who introduced her into the discussion.

No @!$%#, VB. I was like, "wth.really?"

I am sorry, for your loss. There is no way for me to know your sister died from the phrase "used to say". As far as I knew she just wasn't talking to you or found other interests or moved to another state. There are countless meanings to "used to say". And as others have already pointed out, if you didn't want her brought into the conversation then you should not have brought her in as your expert witness.

I do feel for your loss, but it doesn't excuse your attitude.

And I stand by my comments about those that pass such legislation and propositions. If they would stop violating the US Constitution the courts would stop overturning them.

I brought her into the conversation because she once lived in CA for 30 years. And, once again, these were her observations as a voter.

I could care less if gays marry or live on a farm! CA is notorious for their liberal thinking. Don't know whether it is good or bad...I don't care. If they want two roosters to marry, I don't care. I really don't care what CA does!

I do care that my sister was one of the most intelligent people I have ever known. And, if she said this about her home state it must be true.

My great-grandpa used to say "If you eat all the lima beans on your plate, Santa Claus will come and give you everything on your list." He was one of the most intelligent people I have ever known, but his intelligence doesn't make the myth of Santa a reality. BTW, he is dead.

My Uncle Chuck used to tell his son not to pick his nose because he might accidentally scratch his brain. Uncle Chuck was really smart and successful in business, but that didn't make what he said true. Uncle Chuck is still alive.

I say, "Shake and shake the ketchup bottle... None will come and then a lot'll". I have a Phd and a pulse.

Your point???

"Shake and shake the ketchup bottle... None will come and then a lot'll"

Completely off subject, but thank you for this. My grandmother used to say that all the time. You made me think of her and that made me smile. Thanks.

I will join you off subject to ask a question. How did your grandmother use it? It is a phrase I picked up from my childhood best friend's mom. She would just randomly use the phrase for different things. However, this is the same woman who also used to say "Milk. Milk. Lemonade. 'Round the back's where fudge is made." I use that in my human sexuality class and it always gets a laugh.

Sorry for the loss of your sister. That having been said...

And, if she said this about her home state it must be true.

The flip side of that is that if it is true, if the voters in CA regularly pass things that the courts shoot down as unconstitutional, then it also says that the voters in such cases have no idea what the Constitution says.

I will join you off subject to ask a question. How did your grandmother use it? It is a phrase I picked up from my childhood best friend's mom. She would just randomly use the phrase for different things.

It was pretty random, but most often she used it to remind us to be patient...and to be careful what we wished for.

FYI -

That little ketchup bottle ditty was written by the poet Ogden Nash. His also is the world's shortest poem entitled "Fleas" - Adam had'em.

Somehow its a-okay when straights desecrate marriage vows (think: keeping only to each other) but the whole world is going to spin backwards and fly into the sun if two people of the same gender get married.

Go figure.

I still haven't figured out how two men or two women getting married is going to somehow lessen, cheapen or destroy my straight marriage. Nor have I been able to figure out how two loving parents who happen to be the same gender somehow mess up kids. All I know for sure is two loving parents is way better than just one. Regardless of the genders involved.

I agree that with our current SCOTUS a correct decision is by no means certain...but that will only delay the inevitable. This issue isn't going to go away until it's resolved. SCOTUS has had to reverse itself in the past...and if they blow it this time, they will have to do it again.

Funny!

I just love how they sent all that money to California to boost our economy here. More money for the lawyers, the lobbyists, the advertising companies, the marketers, the pollsters...all their hard-earned money was just flowing like a river to enrich the shadiest segments of society....who knew before they started that prop 8 was blatantly unconstitutional and would never survive judicial review. Can't keep the 1% in yachts and private jets unless the 99% is willing to keep handing over what little they have to the lost cause of the week. Way to go mormons.

Oh...and don't trip over any hungry or homeless on your way to the post office sending your "charitable donations" to the uber-rich shysters here.

"shadiest segments of society"

Don't fool yourself these are paranoid bigoted plutocrats that honestly believe they are better than other people.

Don't fool yourself these are paranoid bigoted plutocrats that honestly believe they are better than other people.

And they don't care who they exploit or hurt to get their way and to enrich themselves at other people's expense...hence the 'shadiest segments of society'. Romney...good mormon that he is...thinks the way to get rich is to collapse companies and fire everyone...and he's right, it made him rich. That's all that really matters. He isn't concerned with the poor....there are safety nets for them...at least there are until he gets into office and collapses those too. It's all about the money....and getting more of ours.

I'm tired of those that "know how to run a company" thinking they can run a country. We are citizens, not employees.

bse1963:

Can SCOTUS make all parties combine all cases in to one and thus make one ruling or would someone object to even that ruling and it all starts over again?

Interesting question. One that I don't have an answer for, though.

I'll give them until tonight, then we'll hear what these two think of it.

Well we do know how the Newt feels about judges making decisions based on law rather than his opinion.

daMamma newts fine plan to send it the marshals.

With santorum winning last night he will be out in force, gay bashing today.

they married Newt and Callista,

I'd say that's a match made in divorce court, but that precocious couple started 6 years early. Evidently the catholic church didn't have a problem with that threat to the sanctity of marriage.

Supporters are in effect denying civil rights to a segment of the population based on their own personal religious intolerance.

How is that American?

Sharia law anyone??

Sharia law anyone??

THAT will be OK'd by the courts.

Now we're just being silly.

You may think so, just wait and see.

I can see the challenge now, since Sharia law allows a man to have 5 wives, it's "unconstitutional" to deny him the ability to practice his "faith" in this country as that violates the separation of church and state.

Yeah, sure. I'm not afraid of the "boogeyman"--he's not real.

You may think so, just wait and see.

Yes, because a ruling that increases equality certainly points to future rulings that would restrict equality. Yeah, that makes total sense /s

Yes, trm I was being silly, I guess I should have put the sarcasm tag on that one. Ooops.

Supporters are in effect denying civil rights to a segment of the population based on their own personal religious intolerance.

I agree that this in effect goes against the Constitution in that supporters of prop 8 are denieing a segment of the population their rights, so, in effect they are supporting a Sharia law type of intolerance.

Yes, trm I was being silly

Unfortunately, some are being serious.

Unfortunately, some are being serious.

Which really makes it sad, for them.

I'm a dem AA and I love this ruling. There's alot of us that voted against Prop. Hate.

90% more voted for it

nope 70%

The vote on prop 8 was over three years ago...and came during a maelstrom of vicious, lying ads from the religious right, stirring up a bunch of unfounded fears. It was an ugly moment for California...where hate won out briefly over compassion and decency. Things have calmed down since then...other states have legalized it, people have had a chance to see who was funding the bigotry and why (money pouring in from other states to influence and interfere with this state's election)...and polls consistently show that a majority of Californians now support gay marriage. In fact, a majority of the country supports it. Add to that the fact that there is no reason whatever to withhold it...and it's a forgone conclusion. It's just a matter of time.

For those that oppose it....you can't possibly win this fight. There just isn't any way to defend your position...it's based solely on bigotry. I don't even know why you'd try...you just make yourselves look bad.

Any gay person who has paid taxes in their lifetime should be given a refund for that amount immediately since they have no representation.

Exactly how many times does this have to happen before the Radicals learn?

When is the Sun supposed to swell to engulf the earth? About 4.5 billion years?

We do understand your point of view...there's even a name for it. The difference is...no one is trying to take rights away from you just because they disagree with you. You have the freedom to live the way you want, and enjoy all the rights that everyone else has, even if some of us strongly disagree with some things you do (like teaching your children to be bigots). The same should be afforded to the people you disagree with.

(btw....it's never good to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah....a story where a lying, pimping, raping, incestuous, pedophile drunk is favored as "righteous"and saved....really ruins the whole "moral credibility" thing for you.)

we know what Greece, Rome,Sodom & Gomorrah law of the land were and what happened to them.

Greece was one of the greatest empires of its age. It gave us philosophy, democracy and some of the greatest literature and art in existence. And it is STILL a country today.

The Roman Empire is still the most successful empire in history as far as the life-cycle of empires go (and ALL empires are doomed to fail eventually). Still, no empire since Rome has lasted as long or was as powerful as it was. On a time-scale the United States is not even at the half-way mark of where Rome was.

And homosexuality had absolutely nothing to do with Sodom and Gommorah. The association is not even biblical. It was made much later by the Roman Catholic Church when they went on a rampage against non-procreative anal and oral sex, which also has nothing to do with homosexuality either.

Today look at all the countries where homosexuality is either decriminalized, legalized and anti-discrimination measures are put in place and gay unions are legally recognized.

Now look at all the countries where homosexuals are still treated like criminals.

Seems you think countries like Jamaica, Iran, Zimbabwe and Pakistan are better company for us to be in than countries like Sweden, Canada, Argentina, UK and Australia.

NotKidding: Good point about Sodom and Gomorrah.

We do understand your point of view...there's even a name for it.

I'm sure there is, left to the likes of some.

no one is trying to take rights away from you just because they disagree with you.

And who do tell is trying to take away their rights from them? Who are the ones prancing their sexuality around like its the tonight show with Leno as if we're to give a crap if they want to live together or not? Their pushing a moral tenant in an immoral time, the outcome is inevitable.It seems more that there's some sort of bugs in their backsides that makes them haunted to want to go against what is normal; oh forgive me... left to the lot of them, they'll try the new normal, which history has proven gets societies no where. I wonder, "are they so bent on self destruction that they would actually try to take the rest down with them, thinking that the sickness accepted might work? Bah, not for me to care. They sure might not want to take away my rights when it comes to opposition towards them, but they sure would like to do every thing under the sun to shut me up, push me aside or belittle positions as to get their way, won't they (if your little come back has any value).

You have the freedom to live the way you want, and enjoy all the rights that everyone else has, even if some of us strongly disagree

The only prison I see those people in are the ones in their minds, get real. It's like the "look at us", pity party, " we're the new blacks", as if they could ever experience a fraction of what blacks went thru. Any & every trick,claim or process that works for them, huh? I have the freedom to own a Machiavellian mentality, it doesn't mean I go out utilize certain assets and take over the world, does it. Tell them, keep their bedroom life their business, nobody cares and further more, nobody likes them forcing their way of life down any ones neck. You want to marry, go jump a broom stick or some crap? If its a matter of who gets what, their lawyers for that crap! What it is, is a direct assault on the sanctity of marriage, which in fact is a direct assault against the statues of God; which by the way is no shock, considering the set and circumstances.

even if some of us strongly disagree with some things you do (like teaching your children to be bigots).

What? Teach my kids to be "bigots", because I would dare to tell them, their backsides is for pooping, or that their penises /vaginas are for taking a leak, along with the posterity of creating life(much much much..oh so much much down the line of life), that they should use it with caution and watch out for perverts and sicknesses coming in nice packages? Thank You. Thanks to you, I might now remind them to judge people for what they do in life, after all, show me your friends, I can tell you who you are.

The same should be afforded to the people you disagree with.

Oximoron? Double negatives?

(btw....it's never good to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah....a story where a lying, pimping, raping, incestuous, pedophile drunk is favored as "righteous"and saved....really ruins the whole "moral credibility" thing for you.)

Its the best thing to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah? As for who was lying pimping raping, what evers, I'm not to sure?. Are you referring to an individual, because I was referring to the whole blasted away town? Were you trying to lead into another point of morality with an individual living in that town? Look, let me save you the "grrrrrs". Don't bother.
They can do what they want, its their life; but shizam, man..woman, don't force the crappo on me or as some schools are doing behind parents back, calling social service on them,when parents bring the issue to light, as if its some sort of government sponsored conspiracy to indoctrinate our kids into bull crap before they have a real understanding of what it is their dropped into... bah... go rest yourself.

Greece:

No power, broke as hell, might cause the rest of the EU to sink.
The Roman Empire:

Usurping power from God, has none of their own, another broke back mounting set of buggars, owe so much money their filing bankruptcy

And homosexuality had absolutely nothing to do with Sodom and Gommorah.

Clearly you've not taken the time to read beyond your own understanding, and its also kind of hard to feed others malarkey about cross dressing Roman dopes on an anal trip, when its all they practiced for a good time, and if left for a few choir boys to tell, some time after.

Today look at all the countries where homosexuality is either decriminalized, legalized and anti-discrimination measures are put in place and gay unions are legally recognized.

If they are such places, tell them go there. I can hear the Africa for African crowd right now..lol.

Now look at all the countries where homosexuals are still treated like criminals.

Who treat them like criminals? Take your private lives and go live it, anyone locking them away? Any banter to provoke idiocy, is all I'm getting?

Seems you think countries like Jamaica, Iran, Zimbabwe and Pakistan are better company for us to be in than countries like Sweden, Canada, Argentina, UK and Australia.

Why because I hate so much, that I would sent them to their death for being and doing what they want to do? Why thank you, I always knew I was a barbarian, I just didn't realize how much.

NotKidding: Good point about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Oh please, go get a brain of your own, reading wouldn't hurt either instead of taking and spouting second hand knowledge as if fact.

Clarifying: Its their lives, they can do with it what ever they want, just don't force it on me. By natural law of selection, you'll.... they'll get wiped out for trying.

Who are the ones prancing their sexuality around like its the tonight show with Leno as if we're to give a crap if they want to live together or not?

They have a right to show their sexuality just as heterosexuals do. Turn on the TV you will see plenty of heterosexuals flaunting their sexuality all over the place. And it's not just about "living together"

It seems more that there's some sort of bugs in their backsides that makes them haunted to want to go against what is normal;

It's perfectly normal and natural. Hate to break it to you

which history has proven gets societies no where

Uummm... all great societies and empires have come to an end at some point regardless of homosexual acceptance, it's just a part of history

I wonder, "are they so bent on self destruction that they would actually try to take the rest down with them,

How are they going to take us down? I don't see how someone elses sexuality or marriage has anything to do with me or could possibly affect me in any way

but they sure would like to do every thing under the sun to shut me up, push me aside or belittle positions as to get their way, won't they

That goes for all bigotry actually. People are entitled to their hate tho. Even the KKK are allowed to hold rallies

The only prison I see those people in are the ones in their minds, get real.

Yeah it's not like people are try to make them sound subhuman and unworthy of the right to marry the person they love and get all the legal benefits that come with it.

nobody likes them forcing their way of life down any ones neck.

Never in my life has a gay tried force me to turn gay or get gay married

What it is, is a direct assault on the sanctity of marriage

Oh I guess heterosexuals are doing such a good job protecting the sanctity of marriage, forget the divorce rate and the fact 2 heterosexuals can get married when they don't even love each other and get a divorce the next day if they want. Pppffftttt

which in fact is a direct assault against the statues of God

Keep the sky fairy out of this, we have separation of church and state for a reason and God has nothing to do with marriage. He is only a part of those who choose to have a religious ceremony. My husband and I had a completely non religious ceremony, I assure God was not invited nor needed for our marriage.

Teach my kids to be "bigots", because I would dare to tell them, their backsides is for pooping

That's not just fun reserved for the gays you know! Heterosexuals can enjoy that too *whistle*

Clarifying: Its their lives, they can do with it what ever they want, just don't force it on me.

Don't want gay marriage forced on you? Don't get gay married, simple as that.

By natural law of selection, you'll.... they'll get wiped out for trying.

Not exactly sure what that means but I will give it a shot. My mother in law is a lesbian with 4 kids. Her and her lesbian lover are raising 2 kids who are not their own, but abandoned at the hospital addicted to crack by her lovers crack head straight sister. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they can't reproduce. They can get artificial insemination, a surrogate, or hell just screw someone of the opposite purely for reproductive purposes

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they can't reproduce.

That also goes for heterosexuals as well. Some women can't carry a baby to term; some men have poor sperm count. My friend's aunt can't have a baby.

We do understand your point of view...there's even a name for it.

I'm sure there is, left to the likes of some.

Like Merriam Webster?

And who do tell is trying to take away their rights from them?

The bigots...you know, the mormons, the catholics, the "ProtectMarriage" shills...even McCain and Newt got involved. They are trying to take away the right to marriage that California granted to all non-related, consenting adults back in 2008. You might have heard about it? It's mentioned in the article on this seed? Ring any bells?

Who are the ones prancing their sexuality around like its the tonight show with Leno as if we're to give a crap if they want to live together or not?

Nice try...but this isn't about anyone prancing about or living together. This is about equality. They had the right to marry, bigots tried to take it away. The bigots are the ones making this a public issue...by singling them out for discrimination based on nothing more than their orientation...they forced a public discussion and debate about orientation.

Their pushing a moral tenant in an immoral time, the outcome is inevitable.

You mean pushing for equality in a time of bigotry? Yes...the outcome is inevitable.

It seems more that there's some sort of bugs in their backsides that makes them haunted to want to go against what is normal; oh forgive me... left to the lot of them, they'll try the new normal, which history has proven gets societies no where.

There has always been a percentage of the population that is gay. Always. Every time, every place. That's what's normal. And you might want to re-visit your history books. The real ones.

I wonder, "are they so bent on self destruction that they would actually try to take the rest down with them, thinking that the sickness accepted might work? Bah, not for me to care. They sure might not want to take away my rights when it comes to opposition towards them, but they sure would like to do every thing under the sun to shut me up, push me aside or belittle positions as to get their way, won't they (if your little come back has any value).

Wow...what a lot of hyperbole. Whether you shut up or not isn't really much of a concern. Equality is the concern and your disjointed ranting about imaginary scenarios...well...it's not helping your cause any.

Equality doesn't push you aside...it's just doesn't push other people aside either. And your position can't be belittled any more than it does to itself...it's indefensible...it's based on nothing but bigotry. You don't have a single valid "reason" why equality would be harmful...you just don't like it.

The only prison I see those people in are the ones in their minds, get real. It's like the "look at us", pity party, " we're the new blacks", as if they could ever experience a fraction of what blacks went thru. Any & every trick,claim or process that works for them, huh? I have the freedom to own a Machiavellian mentality, it doesn't mean I go out utilize certain assets and take over the world, does it. Tell them, keep their bedroom life their business, nobody cares and further more, nobody likes them forcing their way of life down any ones neck. You want to marry, go jump a broom stick or some crap?

Interesting rant. You seem to think someone wants your approval or something. Or cares if you give it. It's not up to you....or me. It's a legal matter. You might have noticed the topic of the article? All about the court overturning an unconstitutional initiative?

If its a matter of who gets what, their lawyers for that crap!

Exactly. And that is what is happening. The lawyers are getting LGBT the equality they deserve.

What it is, is a direct assault on the sanctity of marriage,

Who's marriage? It hasn't effected mine in the slightest. Nor anyone's that I know. You must have a pretty weak marriage if that's all it takes to rock your boat. Can't blame equality supporters for that.

which in fact is a direct assault against the statues of God; which by the way is no shock, considering the set and circumstances.

You might have heard about the First Amendment? It means that your religious superstitions have no bearing on the laws of the land...or other people. If you think your imaginary friend won't like it...then don't do it. As a bonus...no one will force you to. You won't be forced to read any articles about it, or jump into discussions about it so you can claim that it's being "forced" on you. You are free, totally free...to simply ignore it. Click a new link, turn the page, change the channel, walk away...poof...it's not your problem any more.

What? Teach my kids to be "bigots", because I would dare to tell them, their backsides is for pooping,

You simply spend too much of your time imagining gay sex. You would feel better if you stopped. You aren't even accurate...more straight people have anal sex than gays do.

or that their penises /vaginas are for taking a leak, along with the posterity of creating life(much much much..oh so much much down the line of life),

So you have never in your life had sex that didn't produce a child? No wonder you're so cranky.

that they should use it with caution and watch out for perverts and sicknesses coming in nice packages? Thank You. Thanks to you, I might now remind them to judge people for what they do in life, after all, show me your friends, I can tell you who you are.

Well it's good to teach your children caution and judgment...but they should use the judgment to be cautious about people that might actually harm them...not just ones their mommy doesn't like....for no particular reason.

The same should be afforded to the people you disagree with.

Oximoron? Double negatives?

Neither actually. Was that too complex? I'm sorry. Let me try again: You are allowed to live according to your beliefs, and still enjoy all the legal rights and privileges society offers. The same thing should be afforded to all people...even those you disagree with. Is that more clear?

Its the best thing to bring up Sodom and Gomorrah? As for who was lying pimping raping, what evers, I'm not to sure?.

Oh...so you haven't actually read the story? Just parroting the sound bites? The hero of that little tale was Lot...and he wasn't such a swell guy by today's standards.

Are you referring to an individual, because I was referring to the whole blasted away town? Were you trying to lead into another point of morality with an individual living in that town? Look, let me save you the "grrrrrs". Don't bother.

Right. No point reading it and finding out just what you are talking about. The incestuous child-raping pimp was Lot...the only one that your "moral" god saved because your god thought that he was "righteous". Which means that god is no authority on moral behavior. Of course, murdering all the innocent first born just to show off how powerful he was, wiping out entire cities just to acquire land (couldn't an omnipotent god have just found them another place to live?) sending bears to rip apart small children...all of these stories already prove that deity is the farthest thing from moral.

They can do what they want, its their life; but shizam, man..woman, don't force the crappo on me

So you sought out an article on gay rights, clicked on it (I'm not going to make the enormous leap and say you read it) just to come here and tell everyone not to force it on you? I see.

or as some schools are doing behind parents back, calling social service on them,when parents bring the issue to light, as if its some sort of government sponsored conspiracy to indoctrinate our kids into bull crap before they have a real understanding of what it is their dropped into... bah... go rest yourself.

The only thing being taught to children is diversity...that families come in many different forms...which is just the truth....it's to help prevent bullying and ostracizing. It's healthy and smart and I believe it's part of most school curriculum's. If you prefer to teach your children hate, fear and prejudice of anyone who isn't exactly like you...then you are actually causing them harm...but I don't think it's illegal yet.

If they are such places, tell them go there. I can hear the Africa for African crowd right now..lol.

Sure there are....this ruling makes it legal again in California. It's also legal in Massachusettes, New York, Iowa, Washington D.C., Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont...and a few hours ago Washington State lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage there, with Oregon not far behind. You can also add Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Most educated, enlightened countries have no problem with gay marriage. Only the backwards, superstitious, and sharia-law type countries do. Oh...and parts of this country too....but those people are in a minority and it's getting smaller every day.

Who treat them like criminals? Take your private lives and go live it, anyone locking them away? Any banter to provoke idiocy, is all I'm getting?

So you don't know about them being targeted for killing in Uganda after American "pastors" went over to spread the hate? You don't know how they are treated in the most religious countries in the world? Whether it's the xian religion or the muslim religion doesn't seem to make any difference. You don't think being denied the right serve their country openly (fixed now, but still...) the right to marry the person they love and so on is treating them the same as everyone else, now do you? Not in prison....just not quite "good" enough to be equal?

NotKidding: Good point about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Oh please, go get a brain of your own, reading wouldn't hurt either instead of taking and spouting second hand knowledge as if fact.

Funny coming from someone who couldn't recognize Lot in the story.

Clarifying: Its their lives, they can do with it what ever they want, just don't force it on me. By natural law of selection, you'll.... they'll get wiped out for trying.

You think someone is going to force you to be gay? They don't want you, sugar. Honest. They would just like you to quit forcing your bigotry into the laws that govern them. Actually...I don't think they want anything from you at all. If you really want to go looking for articles on gay rights so you can complain that you are being forced against your will to think about it...that's up to you. Free country and all that. But no one is forcing you to do anything.

Breaking this law will be punishable by death.

While that may seem nice, it'll lead to a decline in marriage after the first few hundred mothers-in-law are executed...