Federal Judge Overturns California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban
A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a California ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that the Proposition 8 ballot initiative was unconstitutional.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory.
Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That's because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
posted
LOL, i thought you were a Republican and beleive that the mob shouldn't rule?
prop 8 was pretty blatant discrimination...
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
the question will now become whether the Feds can overrule state Govt.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't about 'rights' or the abridgement of such, Glass. It's still about the definition of marriage. Most folks are all about 'civil unions' for gays\lesbians, but they still want 'marriage' to denote a man\woman relationship. Every time this has been brought to a vote by the people, this view has won out. It's only through overriding these votes, or avoiding them altogether, that it has become 'legal' for gays\lesbians to be 'married'.
posted
This isn't about 'rights' or the abridgement of such, Glass.
hmmm..... what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?
i pretty much see a civil union as marriage without the Church
we can dispose of the Church marriage issue, i don't think a Church should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to... i think the Constitution forbids them being forced to as well.
on the other hand? if Church WANTS to preform gay marriages the Constitution seems to require that we allow them to also
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the Defense of mariage act tried to create a civil union law that allowed other states to ignore each others laws..
you can get a "civil union" in one state and no other state has to recognise it under that law...
however? that law was unconstitutional on it's face...
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
the Constitution is not convneient for all people at some time or another...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess by that arguement about rights, you could say it should be legal to force blacks to the back of the bus. it's still a seat right? why shouldn't every PERSON have the right to marry? A civil union is viewed as sitting at the back of the bus.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
This isn't about 'rights' or the abridgement of such, Glass. It's still about the definition of marriage. Most folks are all about 'civil unions' for gays\lesbians, but they still want 'marriage' to denote a man\woman relationship. Every time this has been brought to a vote by the people, this view has won out. It's only through overriding these votes, or avoiding them altogether, that it has become 'legal' for gays\lesbians to be 'married'.
posted
Obviously I disagree, Metal. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination or any equivilency. It has everything to do with societal strength. The nuclear family is the strongest\best building block for any society. If some choose to follow an 'alternative' lifestyle such as homosexuality, so be it. But I, and many others, feel that the 'alternative' choice should bear that distinction so that the preferred unit of a procreative union maintains its preeminence.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Obviously I disagree, Metal. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination or any equivilency. It has everything to do with societal strength. The nuclear family is the strongest\best building block for any society. If some choose to follow an 'alternative' lifestyle such as homosexuality, so be it. But I, and many others, feel that the 'alternative' choice should bear that distinction so that the preferred unit of a procreative union maintains its preeminence.
so you think being gay or lesbian is an alternative?
choice of religion is alternative. sexual orientation is not.
as to procreation? under your logic, we should ban marriage between two people if they cannot procreate. so we need fertility tests before marriage?
and divorce? that destroys the nuclear family it should be banned too...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have the right to vote because you are a woman. You can't vote because you are black. You have to use a separate bathroom because you are black. You can't get married because you are gay. How is this not pure and simple discrimination? Not sure how you justify that statement. Glass beat me to the puch about divorce stats. This has nothing to do with family either. There are plenty of male/female couples who are horrible parents. If you go down that argument you need to institute strong testing to see if couples are fit to get married and then more testing to see if a couple should be allowed to procreate and only have children if there is a strong nuclear core. Maybe fat people shouldn't be allowed to procreate either since obesity would not be a healthy core. Not only that but all of those kids whose procreative parents have dumped them in foster care might have a another married home of their own to go to.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Obviously I disagree, Metal. This has nothing to do with racial discrimination or any equivilency. It has everything to do with societal strength. The nuclear family is the strongest\best building block for any society. If some choose to follow an 'alternative' lifestyle such as homosexuality, so be it. But I, and many others, feel that the 'alternative' choice should bear that distinction so that the preferred unit of a procreative union maintains its preeminence.
We've been through this one several times, Glass. I doubt either of us has anything new to add. Unless Metal wants it, I won't even bother linking the most recent thread where we covered it.
My point of this thread was less a statement on the specific issue and more on the fact that the 'will of the people' seems to have less and less of an impact on what our rulers do.
posted
My point of this thread was less a statement on the specific issue and more on the fact that the 'will of the people' seems to have less and less of an impact on what our rulers do.
LOL... unConstitutional is what it is.... i beleived until recently that Civil Unions were a reasonable replacement for marriage. Unfortuantley? the Civil Unions were not going to be recognised by all states, again that's unConstutional. This is the result of being totally unreasonable.
as for the "will of the people"? we don't live in a Democracy remember? We had this discussion about the Senate. We live in Republic and the will of the people is not the rule in a Republican form of Govt.
if it was just the will of the people that counted? Gore beat Bush in '00.... plain and simple.
if it was the will of the people the utlra-rich would be taxed much higher than they are now...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its very simple you cannot pass laws that discriminate ,as much as certin people would like to. And do so under the heading of, Will of the People. A saying that sounds good and right to the stupid unamerican people people of this land.
At one time in this country it was the will of the people to have slavery and a certain group was targeted to be slaves.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didnt know being a homosexual was a constitutional right. Real nice to see sodomy, abortion, and amnesty to illegal aliens being ok with this administration. Centralized top down federal government that is nationalizing all of our decision making.
The judge that reviewed that case in CA was gay! Go figure!
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I didnt know being a homosexual was a constitutional right. Real nice to see sodomy, abortion, and amnesty to illegal aliens being ok with this administration. Centralized top down federal government that is nationalizing all of our decision making.
The judge that reviewed that case in CA was gay! Go figure!
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: wow!!!...and out pops cow....like a fart in the wind!.....jk..settle down...
Actually JR...they have documented proof that cows contribute to global warming due to all the gas they spew. And our resident cow is quite the lil gas bag!
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: wow!!!...and out pops cow....like a fart in the wind!.....jk..settle down...
Actually JR...they have documented proof that cows contribute to global warming due to all the gas they spew. And our resident cow is quite the lil gas bag!
These days, what DOESNT cause global warming. Human farts are next, and I bet we need to have special taxes for that too. Did you hear the latest concern from the EPA? FARM DUST. Yes thats right, farm dust contributing to the destruction of the planet. Has anyone on this board driven down a gravel road in the country? How dare you pollute this earth with your carbon machine!
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: FARM DUST. have you ever seen pictures of the dust bowl? That was farm dust...
You are comparing apples to oranges. A generational event shouldnt be applicable to forecasting this.
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A generational event shouldnt be applicable to forecasting this.
i wasn't comparing anything to anything...
however, farming practices were in fact responsible for the dust. the lack of rain was generatioanl...
i have a few hundred acres in crop right next to my property, the dust from his road and at certain times when he is harvesting make a pure mess of my shop...
when i lived in NE? same thing...
now i took the time to look it up and according to teh EPA? they have no plans on regulating dust from farm fields or gravel roads...
maybe you can find me soemthing to prove that wrong...
dust is dangerous to some people, but not specifically me or my family.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
now the farmers do something in our area that should be banned, and that is burning off the fields after the harvest...
they are in fact releasing defoliants (agent orange) and pesticides when they do that, not to mention the burning dangers... and yes they get (safety) ticketed regularly for it especially if it creates a road hazard form the smoke, but they keep doing it....
if you knew what was int he dust? you might not be so quick to claim that it isn't pollution...
do you wash your fruits and veggies before you eat them? i do, and we can't wash the dust before we breathe it...
breathing is the fastest way to absorb toxins short of injection...
my understanding is that the EPA is studying what is in the dust, not regulating it...
now i can understand why some people might not want to know what's in the air they breathe, esp if it's a defoliant like agent orange...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
even more interesting is that the mandates for the new rules were designated in '06... that's when Bush and the GOP was in control. Alotof times? these rules favor large business instead of small business, in this case the business is farming...
here's the rule:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562; FRL-8969-2] RIN-2060-AP27
Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
quote:Originally posted by glassman: now the farmers do something in our area that should be banned, and that is burning off the fields after the harvest...
they are in fact releasing defoliants (agent orange) and pesticides when they do that, not to mention the burning dangers... and yes they get (safety) ticketed regularly for it especially if it creates a road hazard form the smoke, but they keep doing it....
if you knew what was int he dust? you might not be so quick to claim that it isn't pollution...
do you wash your fruits and veggies before you eat them? i do, and we can't wash the dust before we breathe it...
breathing is the fastest way to absorb toxins short of injection...
my understanding is that the EPA is studying what is in the dust, not regulating it...
now i can understand why some people might not want to know what's in the air they breathe, esp if it's a defoliant like agent orange...
What type of crops are they burning off? Up here in MO/IL, they plant mainly corn/soy beans. Each year, they rotate the crops planted. They never burn off, they just let the remnants die after harvesting...then disc the remnants up the following year. Why burn them off?
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the ones that burn, burn every crop. You'll see the smoke plumes from 20 30 miles away, hundreds of acres at a whack.... they use ATV's with kerosene spraying to start 'em. They just race along the upwind side and then go do a smaller break to stop it...
the producers (we don't call 'em farmers here) claim it's "clean". It does kill some bugs and thier eggs and larvae. Mostly they just say they "always done it" and they ain't gonna stop....
cotton is the primary crop that got this going. the palnt leaves very tough stalks that will build up over a few years... Think of how long your jeans last... The stalk is just as tough as the fibers. Cotton gets sprayed for whatever bugs, it gets sprayed with hormones to restrict flowering and then to induce flowering so that it all comes in at once. Then they hit it with defoliant to get the leaves out of the way of the harvesters.... The leaves gum up the works bad, cuz they are tough too..... The plant that's even harder on eqpt is hemp, that stuff destroys harvesters its so tough....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the ones that burn, burn every crop. You'll see the smoke plumes from 20 30 miles away, hundreds of acres at a whack.... they use ATV's with kerosene spraying to start 'em. They just race along the upwind side and then go do a smaller break to stop it...
the producers (we don't call 'em farmers here) claim it's "clean". It does kill some bugs and thier eggs and larvae. Mostly they just say they "always done it" and they ain't gonna stop....
cotton is the primary crop that got this going. the palnt leaves very tough stalks that will build up over a few years... Think of how long your jeans last... The stalk is just as tough as the fibers. Cotton gets sprayed for whatever bugs, it gets sprayed with hormones to restrict flowering and then to induce flowering so that it all comes in at once. Then they hit it with defoliant to get the leaves out of the way of the harvesters.... The leaves gum up the works bad, cuz they are tough too..... The plant that's even harder on eqpt is hemp, that stuff destroys harvesters its so tough....
Wow! I thought "slash and burn" ended years ago in the US. No cotton up here...so not very familiar with the particulars you describe. But...seems there ought to be a better way.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might imagine that the Big is happy about this one. I hope they win the next two hurdles on the legal landscape as well.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still a bit fuzzy about how government has any sort of mandate to declare who can or can not get married. Maybe its just me. Probably is. Have fun asking permission.
Ohhh that's right.. this is a gay/straight issue..
Funny, I hardly even noticed the distraction everyone seems blinded by... Oh well.. Again, have fun asking permission.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I'm still a bit fuzzy about how government has any sort of mandate to declare who can or can not get married. Maybe its just me. Probably is. Have fun asking permission.
Ohhh that's right.. this is a gay/straight issue..
Funny, I hardly even noticed the distraction everyone seems blinded by... Oh well.. Again, have fun asking permission.
good point... it was once illegal for mixed races to get married too tho... not that long ago either...
next it'll be people marrying horses... or worse yet? mules wow, just think how that will destroy "the family social unit"...
maybe the Mormons could go back to polygamy? heck it'd be a great recruiting tool...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never understood the allure of having more than one wife.. Just how much illogic can one house hold? Mule eh?... hmmmm
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Never understood the allure of having more than one wife.. Just how much illogic can one house hold? Mule eh?... hmmmm
it seems a little scary to me too.... but hey it IS Biblical....
i suppose polygamy with chickens would be stretching it huh?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I'm still a bit fuzzy about how government has any sort of mandate to declare who can or can not get married. Maybe its just me. Probably is. Have fun asking permission.
Ohhh that's right.. this is a gay/straight issue..
Funny, I hardly even noticed the distraction everyone seems blinded by... Oh well.. Again, have fun asking permission.
good point... it was once illegal for mixed races to get married too tho... not that long ago either...
next it'll be people marrying horses... or worse yet? mules wow, just think how that will destroy "the family social unit"...
maybe the Mormons could go back to polygamy? heck it'd be a great recruiting tool...
So what about NAMBLA? That is one sick group, but if you speaking against that you are not being "open minded" according to them. Who do you think a majority of NAMBLA people want in the White House? A liberal Democrat of course!
Am I being closed minded for thinking that Tijuana donkey shows are not normal and should be illegal in the United States?
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's right moo moo, if free people are allowed to make decisions about who they wish to marry? The next day you'll have fish banging koala bears in the streets!
Just remarkable that the conservatives are the ones rallying behind this.
"Less government is better government!!!! Except for queers.. Gubbment the **** out of them!!!"
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[More Crap]](graemlins/morecrap.png)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
