It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge gives green light for same-sex marriage in California

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Judge gives green light for same-sex marriage in California


edition.cnn.com

Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- A federal judge ruled on Thursday to allow same-sex couples to marry in California, starting on August 18, handing another victory to supporters of gay rights in a case that both sides have said is likely to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage last week, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Hooray for this judge ! This goes to show that more and more people are opening their eyes to how unfair rights are distributed amongst the people and how the constitution is being used to other's advantage.

I do wonder though how long it will be until some other event comes along and justifies re-banning this ruling. Oh well, I guess it'll make to the supreme court.

Peace !



edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
booooooo this judge. we voted.guess that doesnt count for much.


whats next? Pedo rights? polygamist rights? where does it end? same argument....same logic.....

spare me the tears.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unium


Hooray for this judge ! This goes to show that more and more people are opening their eyes to how unfair rights are distributed amongst the people and how the constitution is being used to other's advantage.

I do wonder though how long it will be until some other event comes along and justifies re-banning this ruling. Oh well, I guess it'll make to the supreme court.

Peace !



edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


No rights are being taken away. dear god. You ever try to debate a gay marriage supporter? it always ends up at jim crow laws......oh well.

I think this was a stupid decision. What if his ruling is stricken down? what if he was wrong? this sure will cause alot of heartbreak. The judge should have said they should wait until this thing is decided entirely either by the 9 circuits or the SCOTUS.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nofoolishness
The judge should have said they should wait until this thing is decided entirely either by the 9 circuits or the SCOTUS.
I suspect an appeal will be filed before the green light goes into effect, which might mean that no gay marriages can take place before the supreme court decides, I think? At least, that is what they just said on the radio.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Good for them.

All I can say is....how the hell did Iowa come to realization long before California?


Perhaps those stereotypes aren't as strong as we assumed.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerMan
booooooo this judge. we voted.guess that doesnt count for much.


whats next? Pedo rights? polygamist rights? where does it end? same argument....same logic.....

spare me the tears.


This was a referendum? Why have a vote if it can be overturned? Whats more it was a vote by the people not the reps. This was a direct vote and really not subject to one dam judge a fed judge to boot. Why dont they overturn all referendums?

How is the SC going to rule on something that is not present on a federal level? There are no federal referendums only some states have public votes like this. This federal judge may be out of his capacity.

As far a jim crow laws....this is not the sort of thing like say free folks voting to keep some in slavery....but an issue voted on by folks already under abd subject to what marriage is and ruling that they dont want to change the meaning of the status.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf
Good for them.

All I can say is....how the hell did Iowa come to realization long before California?


Perhaps those stereotypes aren't as strong as we assumed.


Iowa never got to vote. Iowans were even wanting to ban it as well. But the state government would not allow it and refused it. Essentially the government vs the people. The people never got a say.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
This is cool, what people do behind closed doors is their business and if they want to marry how is that our business?

I'm all for gay rights and their right to marry.

Adoption is another issue though, I am not at all for gay couples adopting, that is just wrong.

If people decide to be gay they decide not to be able to have kids, but some people want to be with another gay person AND have an offsrping of heterosexuals.

That's like bungie jumping to me, suicidal but not really.

If someone decides to be gay, then live with your decision and be happy and you have my blessings!



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


i wonder how much the entire package cost the state. the poll booths the ballots all that must have cost quite a bit.


for nothing.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LurkerMan
 



Thats right. If there was a question it should have been ruled on prior to the vote if a vote could have been held and would it stand if binding.

Can anyone show when a fed judge has ruled against a referendum in this or any other state? About anything? Are all state referendums subject to a fed judge overide?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


So what you're saying is that as long as a group of voters turn out to vote on something, it should be law, even if it goes against the bill of rights or the constitution?

So if we got a group of voters together one year to "ban retards from the internet" ...it should come to pass?

If we got a group of voters to turn up and vote so that Divorce becomes against the law, punishable by death (giving new meaning to death do us part)

Then it should be law?


Bigoted cowards ALL OVER this great country of ours are scared crapless because they think the gays are coming, the gays are coming.

Guess what? They're already here, and have been, for a very very long time. Hell, one of your kids is probably gay and is too afraid to tell you, for fear you'll beat him to death for it.


So much for your compassionate conservative values and Christian faith.

Hypocrites.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 



Great pile of rhetorical blabber.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LurkerMan
booooooo this judge. we voted.guess that doesnt count for much.


whats next? Pedo rights? polygamist rights? where does it end? same argument....same logic.....

spare me the tears.


Homosexuality is not illegal in California unlike the other items you listed. The slippery slope argument is always a bit ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Snarf
 



Great pile of rhetorical blabber.


How is it rhetorical blabber? Because you can't respond to it? Because it's true?

All it is - is the exact same idiotic rhetoric from the bigoted fools opposing equal rights for fellow human beings.

Just because voters vote to pass into law something that is unconstitutional, doesn't mean it should be allowed to be a law.

What if voters voted to ban all fire arms? I'd bet dollars to peso's that you'd be one of the first persons on ATS to be posting about how they can't over throw the constitution.


Don't get upset simply because you lack th ability to comprehend it.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Snarf]

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Snarf]




top topics



 
1

log in

join