Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
161,301 - 161,320 of 200,347 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184740
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

really wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope he is stocked up on Pepto Bismol in case he gets sick like he did when Romney lost, the poor old thing.
You remember that, too? He was OUT OF CONTROL when that happened.
William P

San Dimas, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184743
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Subject: Please investigate the city of Glendora, CA the same way the city of Bell, CA was investigated.

I created a petition to Governor Jerry Brown and President Barack Obama which says:

"Please sign my petition to President Obama and Governor Jerry Brown asking them to order a thorough investigation of the city of Glendora, California the same way the city of Bell, California was investigated."

Will you sign this petition? Click here:

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184744
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Qualifications for determining you are confused as to the definition of "consummation" as it allies to the sexual union of husband and wife? My ability to read.
From a quick Google search...

"Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled."

"Consummation of marriage refers to the first time the husband and wife co-habit together or engage in sexual intercourse, after the ceremony of marriage has been performed. Under canon law, a refusal to consummate the marriage may be grounds for an annulment or for divorce. But this is not so at common law or under modern state law."
William P

San Dimas, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184745
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Please investigate the city of Glendora, CA the same way the city of Bell, CA was investigated.

This city is in serious jeopardy ever since a certain element took over and declared themselves KING,

I created a petition to Governor Jerry Brown and President Barack Obama which says:

"Please sign my petition to President Obama and Governor Jerry Brown asking them to order a thorough investigation of the city of Glendora, California the same way the city of Bell, California was investigated."

Will you sign this petition? Click here:

http://signon.org/sign/please-investigate-the ...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184746
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Qualifications for determining you are confused as to the definition of "consummation" as it allies to the sexual union of husband and wife? My ability to read.
Gay people can consummate their marriage just like straight people. Keep in mind "consummation" does not equal reproduction. Any form of copulation would satisfy the definition of consummation for the sake of marriage.
really

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184747
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
You remember that, too? He was OUT OF CONTROL when that happened.
I remember it well, old K'merde said he puked...I guess it really knocked the stuffins out of him, the old guy can't take much. I bet he is clutching a wastebasket, rocking back and forth, muttering to himself some where.
JustaMe

Kelseyville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184749
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

This has nothing to do with the love/marriage paradox. It was motivated by tax deductions denied for shame sex couples as opposed to normal male & female sex couples. But then again "love" is blind.
Sock it to me.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184750
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

can someone please show me where a state stepped in and dissolved a marriage against the wishes of both parties because the state did not consider the "consummation" to be correct?

One case please... either show me the case where a marriage was dissolved against the wishes of both parties by the state, or the consummation argument is now at an end.

Not a requirement for a state to recognize a marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184751
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people can consummate their marriage just like straight people. Keep in mind "consummation" does not equal reproduction. Any form of copulation would satisfy the definition of consummation for the sake of marriage.
We both know that is not true. Consumation is the first act of sexual intercourse, coitus, by husband and wife. So what sexual act between two men, and two women, would constitute "consumation", considering, coitus, is not possible?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184752
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, by all means, lets encourage men in their 60s, 70s, and 90s to father children. That makes A LOT of sense. No potential for problems related to rearing children when you're a senior citizen. Heck, if you time it just right, your kid will be just old enough to wipe your behind when you become unable to do so yourself.(sarcasm)
Now now VV, you read what Xbox wrote, or perhaps quoted. I merely pointed out that men can father children well into their golden years, beyond the age of 55. I didn't say that should be encouraged or discouraged.

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
"Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg pounded Cooper for linking marriage to child-bearing, with Kagan asking if states could also prohibit couples over age 55 from getting married. Cooper responded that even in that case, at least one member of the marriage would likely still be fertile, a suggestion that drew laughter from the courtroom."
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184753
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We both know that is not true. Consumation is the first act of sexual intercourse, coitus, by husband and wife. So what sexual act between two men, and two women, would constitute "consumation", considering, coitus, is not possible?
what narrow mindedness.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184754
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
can someone please show me where a state stepped in and dissolved a marriage against the wishes of both parties because the state did not consider the "consummation" to be correct?
Sigh...Big D....no state has done that, or could do that. It doesn't change the meaning, the sexual reference of "consumation" as it relates to husband AND wife. We both big boys, and have consumated, the old fashioned coital way, our marriages. Even created a few children that way.
One case please... either show me the case where a marriage was dissolved against the wishes of both parties by the state, or the consummation argument is now at an end.
Not a requirement for a state to recognize a marriage.
You're doing it again Big D, ignoring the point. Consumation is not a requirement. I never said it was.

http://info.legalzoom.com/annulment-requireme...
Failure to Consummate

Although not common in today’s society, failure to consummate a marriage remains a legal reason for annulment. Failure to consummate, when it occurs, may have its roots in physical inability as opposed to unwillingness. Male impotence as well as a female condition referred to as “vaginismus” have been linked to failure to initiate marital relations.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/L...
Marriages Are Annulled in Special Cases

Q.: What is an annulment?
A.: When certain circumstances, exist, a court can grant a marriage annulment, which means that the marriage is not only terminated, but treated as if it never took place.

Q.: What are these certain circumstances?
A.: The circumstances under which a marriage is annulled are called "grounds." There are six grounds for an annulment. You may qualify for an annulment if, at the time of the marriage:


6) Your marriage was never consummated. This means that you and your spouse failed to have physical relations at any time following the marriage ceremony. Such an annulment action also must be filed within two years of the date of the marriage
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184755
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We both know that is not true. Consumation is the first act of sexual intercourse, coitus, by husband and wife. So what sexual act between two men, and two women, would constitute "consumation", considering, coitus, is not possible?
Please show me the case where the state stepped in, and against the wishes of both parties, dissolved the marriage because the state did not consider the consummation successful

show me the law where this is a requirement to be married ( not get a divorce anyone can divorce anyone for any stupid reason )

One case, that is all we need, were the state dissolved the marriage against the wishes of both parties

Or this is another dead end argument

I know people that got married that lost the use of the lower half of their bodies in Vietnam who got married, this will be huge news for them that you consider their marriages illegal.

Not that they will give a darn what you think
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184756
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying won’t help you, I didn’t say it was one issue, I said every major issue, every cause of the secession ( quite a number of them ) was tied to the institution of slavery and the continuation of that institution.
That is a fact
there is really no use in talking history with someone who didnt read it from the same taxt books as you and I did.

think of it as a texas school board of education, style curiculum....

ricardo is a bit weak on history and science(esp)

texas tea.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184757
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
there is really no use in talking history with someone who didnt read it from the same taxt books as you and I did.
think of it as a texas school board of education, style curiculum....
ricardo is a bit weak on history and science(esp)
texas tea.
It is like they are only getting skewed information, Lost Cause arguments, and conspiracy theory websites and Faux News and nowhere else.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184758
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Please show me the case where the state stepped in, and against the wishes of both parties, dissolved the marriage because the state did not consider the consummation successful
show me the law where this is a requirement to be married ( not get a divorce anyone can divorce anyone for any stupid reason )
One case, that is all we need, were the state dissolved the marriage against the wishes of both parties
Or this is another dead end argument
As I have stated, but you continue to ignore because it shows the mighty Big D is not infaliable, there is no legal requirement to consumate. But, you'll probably continue to rant on. Failure to consumate is grounds for an annulment in some states, or are you going to argue that is not the case?
I know people that got married that lost the use of the lower half of their bodies in Vietnam who got married, this will be huge news for them that you consider their marriages illegal.
Not that they will give a darn what you think
I know people that will distort other's opinions because they are unwilling, or unable to engage in rational debate an discussion. Plese point out where I said anyone's marriage is illegal for failure to consumate. You've been up on that mountain way too long. Come down for a while, clear your head.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184759
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
what narrow mindedness.
For pointing out the obvious? Or for pointing out something you either don't agree with, or are unable to acknowledge its validity?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184760
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>...and that is the ONLY accepted legal definition, is it? How very odd..... Gay couples cannot consummate their marriages, yet they get married every day.... strange.
Someone is out of touch with reality.
It doesn't change the definition of the word, now does it Xbox. Simply because several states have chosen to designate same sex sexual intimate relationships as marriage doesn't change the meaning of every word related to the union of husband and wife. But I understand, you have to say something.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184761
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have stated, but you continue to ignore because it shows the mighty Big D is not infaliable, there is no legal requirement to consumate. But, you'll probably continue to rant on. Failure to consumate is grounds for an annulment in some states, or are you going to argue that is not the case?
<quoted text>
I know people that will distort other's opinions because they are unwilling, or unable to engage in rational debate an discussion. Plese point out where I said anyone's marriage is illegal for failure to consumate. You've been up on that mountain way too long. Come down for a while, clear your head.
so .. consummation... dead argument against same sex marriage

Along with procreation... dead argument against same sex marriage

what else you got
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184762
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't change the definition of the word, now does it Xbox. Simply because several states have chosen to designate same sex sexual intimate relationships as marriage doesn't change the meaning of every word related to the union of husband and wife. But I understand, you have to say something.
No several states have declared same sex marriage as legal as heterosexual marriages, any attack on marriage in those states applies to both heterosexual and homosexuals as well.

Equal in the eyes of the law, as it should be

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 News Video

•••
•••

Beverly Hills Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••