Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201854 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Vealed

Monrovia, CA

#204106 Jul 21, 2013
Stuff pork-chops coming up.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204110 Jul 21, 2013
Poof wrote:
But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage..
http://thomists.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/gett...
Moreover, court decisions do indicate that the state’s interest in marriage is connected with procreation. Consider the following cases from the United States.
“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”– Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 541
“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”– Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”– Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra 316 U.S. At p. 541 and citing Maynard v Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190)
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.
“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.
Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.
“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.
“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204112 Jul 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and guess what? You got nothing but a fake marriage.
Snicker.
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Would that be YOUR opinion, or is it some how backed up by facts????
SS couples will never ever be more than a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage. A failure of mating behavior.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204113 Jul 21, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. its not a requirment in any state. So your point of being a steril marriage hold's no any water. We don't mandate procreation in a heterosexual marriage so how can you EVEN try to in same sex marriage. Now go away you really bore me.
As to "hijack the word", look it up fool, you will find that same sex marriage is found in the deffination.
We both know and understand no such thing.

Only a ss couple who need protection to have sex would tell a heterosexual couple who need protection not to procreate that it doesn't matter.

Ss couples just don't equate to marriage. You will never be more than 'marriage LIGHT'. REALLY light. So light, relationship would qualify!

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204114 Jul 21, 2013
Amy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious he doesn't like women, he only fantasizes about male sex.
You obviously don't know that I am a lesbian trapped in a straight man...
Hank

Los Angeles, CA

#204115 Jul 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry I called you a gimp the other day. It was out of line.
You didn't have to apologize. Rizzo was going to let you blow him regardless.
Hank

Los Angeles, CA

#204116 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
After a long night of eating pussie, my beard looks like a freakin' glazed donut!
Same thing happens to Hank from LA but it's from d!ck.
It's cool! Sex is fun. Enjoy! Yeah, even you Hank you perv.
You're eating out your sister these days? Isn't your mom going to get jealous??

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204117 Jul 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
(Pietro's various Supreme Court decision examples which tie marriage and children)
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If you take all of those examples of Supreme Court decisions, then you must take Kennedy's...

"DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.
DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204120 Jul 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If you take all of those examples of Supreme Court decisions, then you must take Kennedy's...
"DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.
DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
Poof wrote:
But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage..

Thus, all the court citations proving her assertion, false. As to the rest, stay tuned.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204121 Jul 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If you take all of those examples of Supreme Court decisions, then you must take Kennedy's...
"DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.
DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
Interesting....sounds like the Court is laying the groundwork for plural marriage. After all, plural marriage produce biological children of both the husband and wife, whereas, it's a stretch to use the word "of", as in "children of same sex couples". It would not be fair to stigmatize children of plural marriages. It's only a matter of time.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204123 Jul 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting....sounds like the Court is laying the groundwork for plural marriage. After all, plural marriage produce biological children of both the husband and wife, whereas, it's a stretch to use the word "of", as in "children of same sex couples". It would not be fair to stigmatize children of plural marriages. It's only a matter of time.
At no point has a heterosexual or homosexual couple recently brought an argument to the court asking to legalize their plural marriage.

It wasn't argued in the DOMA or the Proposition 8 case.

If polygamists wish to challenge state's laws, then they will have to start from the ground up; since no state currently recognizes plural marriages.

See, the DOMA decision was clearly based on the fact that several states have already passed marriage equality laws that support same-gender couples.

Polygamy has not been recognized in any such laws.

It may happen; it may not.

If anything, the Supreme Court's decision has made it more difficult for states to continue to ban same-gender marriages. They have found such marriages as being legitimate. They have also found that depriving the children of same-gender couples of formal recognition of their families to be harmful.

It's only a matter of time...
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#204124 Jul 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
At no point has a heterosexual or homosexual couple recently brought an argument to the court asking to legalize their plural marriage.
Is it that difficult to see the handwriting on the wall?
It wasn't argued in the DOMA or the Proposition 8 case.
Actually it was raised, by a Justice, in a question.
If polygamists wish to challenge state's laws, then they will have to start from the ground up; since no state currently recognizes plural marriages.
True, first step is decriminalization. We both know the recent ruling can only help plural marriage practitioners.
See, the DOMA decision was clearly based on the fact that several states have already passed marriage equality laws that support same-gender couples.
Or several states have jettisoned marriage conjugality. "Marriage equality" sounds so Orwellian. Besides it can be applied to polygamy too.
Polygamy has not been recognized in any such laws.
It may happen; it may not.
If anything, the Supreme Court's decision has made it more difficult for states to continue to ban same-gender marriages. They have found such marriages as being legitimate. They have also found that depriving the children of same-gender couples of formal recognition of their families to be harmful.
It's only a matter of time...
Oh so it's okay to "harm" children of plural marriages? For the state to deny their biological mother AND father the right to marry? Both mom and dad are present, as opposed to their biological mother or father, and their biological mother or father's same sex partner.
Vealed

Monrovia, CA

#204125 Jul 21, 2013
Each pork to prove your a true blue American, all other's leave the country at once.

Go back to your home country and eat sand.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#204126 Jul 21, 2013
http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-po...

It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something.

You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.

The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling. Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of “fundamental rights” and equal protection. Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.

What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion.
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.

The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?

In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect,“don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#204128 Jul 21, 2013
How did Prop 8 work out in California? ROTFLAMO

Huge FAIL.....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#204129 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you don't like it but you've given polygamists that "start from the ground up" already. You have paved the way.
I don't see how keeping the ban on polygamy can still be justified now that several states have abandoned the notion that heterosexual marriage is essential to social stability, why should monogamy still be insisted upon? Why is it OK to drop the gender part of "one man one woman" but not the number part?
And why can't a man marry his brother?
Write to Boehner. See if he and the other TEAtards want to repeal the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1873. Test his metal.
Tidie Bowl

Monrovia, CA

#204130 Jul 21, 2013
Tidie Bowl Frankie has it all sown up.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#204134 Jul 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Write to Boehner. See if he and the other TEAtards want to repeal the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1873. Test his metal.
Awwwwwww.....Wastey...the Glibtees are trail blazers for marriage equality for everyone. Must give ya goose bumps to know ya helped opened up the Pandora's Rainbow box o' quality. Yes sir Ree. Every kid on the team gets a trophy......or a piece of wedding cake.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204135 Jul 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it that difficult to see the handwriting on the wall?
<quoted text>
Actually it was raised, by a Justice, in a question.
<quoted text>
True, first step is decriminalization. We both know the recent ruling can only help plural marriage practitioners.
<quoted text>
Or several states have jettisoned marriage conjugality. "Marriage equality" sounds so Orwellian. Besides it can be applied to polygamy too.
<quoted text>
Oh so it's okay to "harm" children of plural marriages? For the state to deny their biological mother AND father the right to marry? Both mom and dad are present, as opposed to their biological mother or father, and their biological mother or father's same sex partner.
I can never tell where you stand on this issue (actually I can) because out of one side of your mouth you talk as though polygamy is inevitable. And then it's "Katie, bar the door!"

But then on the other hand, you talk about how banning polygamy represents inequality.

So which is it? Are you for polygamy or against it?

I still stand by my comment that this decision in no way helps polygamy.

These decisions were based on the fact that 1.) Those in favor of Prop. 8 didn't have standing. 2.) In those states where marriage is legal for same-gender partners, DOMA--which banned federal benefits and protections--was unconstitutional.

Until polygamy is legalized in a state, they're not going to be able to fight for federal benefits.

And since polygamy has already been addressed by the Supreme Court, I don't know if it will have a chance or not.

That's "their" fight.

If you want to say that it's unfair to seek marriage equality for same-gender couples but not polygamists, then that's your right.

Not being a polygamist, I'm not going to enter the fray.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204136 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because I let you blow me doesn't mean I let everybody. You're special Hank. You swallow good.
Frankie, did you just "come out" as bisexual?

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
News Vanessa Hudgens enjoys her day out in Beverly H... 2 hr vanessa hudgens real 1
News D.A.: Operators Will Be Prosecuted For Murder I... 4 hr marg 1
News Kanye, Sam Smith, the Who set for iHeartRadio M... 9 hr K-DJ 6
Very Large Burmese python bagged in Everglades 21 hr Tom 1
Skanky"s Bar coming to Beverly hills Jul 24 Ricky Ray 1
racist twitter account Jul 23 565656abc 1
News Be aware: Vice President Joe Biden's visit expe... Jul 22 Marin County 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Beverly Hills Mortgages