Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,976

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
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183314 Mar 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If procreation is removed from marriage,...
Um.... when was it a requirement for marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183315 Mar 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Um.... when was it a requirement for marriage?
Sigh.....XBox ....the requirement, at least in 32+ U.S. states is, marriage is between a man and a woman. Here's where it gets really radical. Most married couples will have sex, aka coital intercourse. You might have read about it in sex ed class. Any way, that act, can result in, and quite often does, conception. Before you know it baby is born and grows up to post on internet forums under the moniker, "Xavier Breath". Everybody has a mother and father, even you.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183316 Mar 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh.....XBox ....the requirement, at least in 32+ U.S. states is, marriage is between a man and a woman. Here's where it gets really radical. Most married couples will have sex, aka coital intercourse. You might have read about it in sex ed class. Any way, that act, can result in, and quite often does, conception. Before you know it baby is born and grows up to post on internet forums under the moniker, "Xavier Breath". Everybody has a mother and father, even you.
Where is the requirement for procreation for marriage? There isn't one.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183317 Mar 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the requirement for procreation for marriage? There isn't one.
It seems to be an attempt to diminish millions of marriages between people that either could not or choose not to have children.

He can only make himself feel better by diminishing the marriages of others perhaps?

I am curious if procreation is a requirement for a marriage to be valid if they want to invalidate those millions of other marriages?

Procreation has never... ever... been requirement for a marriage. I donít think we want to start that now.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#183318 Mar 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> No dear, your clients are the jokes. How many CUs did you recommend today?
CLIENTS???
but I thought I was not a lawyer..

you insisted thousands of times now!

You are a lying fraud as usual...

How many names do you judge icons with anyway?
are you actually up to re-logging in 8 times ?
pathetic.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183319 Mar 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
CLIENTS???
but I thought I was not a lawyer..
you insisted thousands of times now!
You are a lying fraud as usual...
How many names do you judge icons with anyway?
are you actually up to re-logging in 8 times ?
pathetic.
What Law School taught you about evidence?
Dorn

La Puente, CA

#183320 Mar 14, 2013
Gay married couples who do not have their own children are helping the Plant Earth decrease population growth rate.
Gay married couples who have the natural urge to nourish children and adopt unwanted children should be applaulded.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#183321 Mar 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What Law School taught you about evidence?
so you refuse to decide what lies to tell for today?

come on, did I never go to law school because I failed the LSAT?
(obviously that stupid attack by you was one of my favorites)

MAKE UP YOUR TWISTED MIND....

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183322 Mar 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You were trying to imply that children are not an integral part of marriage. In that foolish attempt, your deceitful exaggeration was exposed.
It is again.
You make my case;
By your own stats, as child bearing declines, so does marriage. A clear and undeniable correlation that as you put it, even a fool should be able to see...
Then you make the silly assertion that child bearing 'should be included on the marriage license'. Ignoring the fact that some states still require blood tests because to the potential, why would they? If children need government permission, why not sex? What about eating together? Using the same bathroom??? Your gay twirl is sooooo silly...
Just a note, divorces do rise after children are adults. Moreover, the argument for no-fault divorce was that 'staying together for the children' was not a good reason. What happened? Divorce skyrocketed and social health of children plummeted. You should know this as a 'social worker'...
The government has to have a prevailing reason to determine who can marry. There is one for the fundamental building block of society; families. There is none for discriminatory support of some friendships between a arbitrary number of people.
Bazinga!
I clearly stated that procreation is ONE of the reasons that people get married. It, however, IS NOT the only reason that people marry.

If the only reason for marriage is procreation, then the government should ONLY be handing out licenses to fertile couples who clearly want to have children.

Using your stupid perspective, those who are infertile due to medical problems or age and those who are simply uninterested in having children SHOULD NOT be issued a license to marry.

These people, as you point out, are only arbitrary friends.

If you're going to refuse same-gender couples the right to marry due to their inability to "naturally" create life, then you're going to have to refuse marriage to those heterosexual couples who cannot have or do not want to have children as well.

Is that a step you're willing to take?
WayOut

Covina, CA

#183323 Mar 14, 2013
And the hits just keep on coming.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183324 Mar 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I clearly stated that procreation is ONE of the reasons that people get married. It, however, IS NOT the only reason that people marry.
If the only reason for marriage is procreation, then the government should ONLY be handing out licenses to fertile couples who clearly want to have children.
Using your stupid perspective, those who are infertile due to medical problems or age and those who are simply uninterested in having children SHOULD NOT be issued a license to marry.
These people, as you point out, are only arbitrary friends.
If you're going to refuse same-gender couples the right to marry due to their inability to "naturally" create life, then you're going to have to refuse marriage to those heterosexual couples who cannot have or do not want to have children as well.
Is that a step you're willing to take?
I would take it a step further, procreation has never ever been mandatory or even implied as a reason for marriage, there are millions upon millions of marriages that cannot or choose not to have children.

That is a choice, not any kind qualification for marriage.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183326 Mar 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so you refuse to decide what lies to tell for today?
come on, did I never go to law school because I failed the LSAT?
(obviously that stupid attack by you was one of my favorites)
MAKE UP YOUR TWISTED MIND....
It was a simple question. What law school taught you about evidence?
get real

Clearlake, CA

#183328 Mar 14, 2013
The study of the psychopath reveals an individual who is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or empathy for their actions. They are generally cunning, manipulative and know the difference between right and wrong but dismiss it as applying to them

The fact that this thread continues infinitum makes the case for many G/L folks being....well....let's say....in need of some help.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#183329 Mar 14, 2013
get real wrote:
The study of the psychopath reveals an individual who is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or empathy for their actions. They are generally cunning, manipulative and know the difference between right and wrong but dismiss it as applying to them
Chuckle - that applies to every overly religious person I know
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#183330 Mar 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a simple question. What law school taught you about evidence?
I learned working at GE...
what job did YOU have there?
pet peeve sonoma state U

Petaluma, CA

#183331 Mar 14, 2013
Prop 8 Unconstitutional wrote:
<quoted text>
And so sorry "Sweets and OH great ignorant one but that has already been done in California by 2 courts now and this summer the Supreme court will again confirm it! Gays have the right to "Equal treatment" under the law and as it now stands they simply don't,but come June they will once and for all! You don't have to like it but you will have to live with it,so sad to bad hate boy!
`
So join us in the teaparty now. We have got the house, the votes are counted by those who know how to count and the senate is next as is the big house..PERMANENTLY our address as long as we keep knocking down every stupid act the muslim bum presents. We are for stopping it all 'til 2016; the buffet for bums and retired sick lazy volk who just wont go on and who didnt save and plan and the weird and strange who dont make any sense. Join us or be in the mess with them.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183332 Mar 14, 2013
pet peeve sonoma state U wrote:
<quoted text>
`
So join us in the teaparty now. We have got the house, the votes are counted by those who know how to count and the senate is next as is the big house..PERMANENTLY our address as long as we keep knocking down every stupid act the muslim bum presents. We are for stopping it all 'til 2016; the buffet for bums and retired sick lazy volk who just wont go on and who didnt save and plan and the weird and strange who dont make any sense. Join us or be in the mess with them.
Lobotomies seem to be required, at least everyone I have ever seen in the tea party, no thanks
Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Beacon, NY

#183333 Mar 14, 2013
pet peeve sonoma state U wrote:
<quoted text>
`
So join us in the teaparty now. We have got the house, the votes are counted by those who know how to count and the senate is next as is the big house..PERMANENTLY our address as long as we keep knocking down every stupid act the muslim bum presents. We are for stopping it all 'til 2016; the buffet for bums and retired sick lazy volk who just wont go on and who didnt save and plan and the weird and strange who dont make any sense. Join us or be in the mess with them.
So how long have you been a member of the American Taliban anyway?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183335 Mar 14, 2013
Bing Guy Dong wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, that applies to every gay, atheist, socialist, SHEEPLE, we know!
Oh no, that perfectly describes religious types, they do evil and donít care, they hurt others without any remorse and they donít think the law or any morality or decency of this country of justice, equality and freedom apply to them, or to their efforts to trample on the happiness of others different from themselves.

It fits them perfectly

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183336 Mar 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I would take it a step further, procreation has never ever been mandatory or even implied as a reason for marriage, there are millions upon millions of marriages that cannot or choose not to have children.
I would take it even further than that. Marriage is a transformative process that turns a man and woman into each other's legally wedded, respective wife, or husband. It has deep seated historic, cultural, legal and religious roots. In fact the sexual union, of husband and wife, can, and often does, result in conception.
hus if the couple
That is a choice, not any kind qualification for marriage.
That is a definition, that requires the qualification of male to female and vice versa.

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.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Has Gaga Lost the Gays? 22 min Mitt s Airtight D... 16
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 29 min Bikerboy 7,956
Arnold Schwarzenegger For President 2016 (Nov '12) 30 min fancy 4
Kim Kardashian Facing Fur-ious Protest At Calab... (Apr '12) 35 min fancy 2
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Chet Booswahnicki 19,226
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles 1 hr fancy 3
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 5 hr theos 2,276
•••

Beverly Hills News Video

•••
Beverly Hills Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Beverly Hills Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Beverly Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Beverly Hills
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••