Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,149

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
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.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183337 Mar 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I learned working at GE...
what job did YOU have there?
GE is a law school now, eh? Mkay..... I already know you didn't go to law school.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183338 Mar 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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
<quoted text>
That is a definition, that requires the qualification of male to female and vice versa.
Not correct at all, you are dead wrong on cultural and legal roots, you best not mention religion as that has never been a legal requirement for a marriage, you can get married by a justice of the peace, I have been to many weddings with no mention of any of the thousands of human religions at all.

I know many gay couples, many of the legally married in California before Prop 8.

You are wrong in just about every aspect.
Pietro Armando

Derby, CT

#183340 Mar 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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
It works both ways. Not everyone is a secular saint on the other side.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183341 Mar 14, 2013
KiMare wrote:
VV, maybe this analogy will help your foolishness;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Trees can't do things like that, idiot. Are you so dumb because your brain is made out of tissues with two different sets of tissues that don't communicate?
KiMare wrote:
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too is simply silly.
Stupid! The ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, it's pretty much the definition. The ability to have children is NOT part of the indention of marriage.
KiMare wrote:
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
If our rights depend on our genes, should you be allowed to marry?
You already have both sets!
LOL!
Speaking of evolution, do you think you should have been aborted?
KiMare wrote:
Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.
Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship. Hardly a cause for government interest, let alone selective discrimination.
You are welcome.
Smile.
And stupid, allowing gay marriage will not remove the element of procreation, people will still procreate.
LOL!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183343 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.
The government could even wait until the couple produces a child. People who feel it's wrong to have sex before marriage could have a religious ceremony before having sex.
veryvermilion wrote:
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?
You won't get an answer. Well, maybe that stupid apple/walnut tree analogy.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183344 Mar 14, 2013
Dorn wrote:
Gay married couples who do not have their own children are helping the Plant Earth decrease population growth rate.
Some countries are doing that on their own.
Gay married couples who have the natural urge to nourish children and adopt unwanted children should be applaulded.
Absolutely. Any person who adopts a child should be applauded
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183345 Mar 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It works both ways. Not everyone is a secular saint on the other side.
In what way are same sex couples trampling the happiness of others? Unless...these others happiness is derived from denying happiness to other people?

It doesnít matter which way you look at it does it?

One side is trying to deny happiness to others, while the other side is just trying to find their own happiness with no effect on anyone else.

There are 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California right now, didnít hurt me, or my marriage to my wife in any way at all, no one has ever explained what harm it has done to anyone, not to me, and certainly not in court.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#183346 Mar 14, 2013
Procreation is a benefit of marriage, that's why government privileges marriage. Procreation isn't a requirement for marriage anymore than requiring people to eat only what they shoot would be a requirement for a hunting license.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#183347 Mar 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
The Taliban has an opening for you, you would like it there. Religion is mandated, anyone not conforming to social norms is not tolerated and harshly punished.
Pietro Armando wrote about procreation and marriage, not about religion.

.
Big D wrote:
Just your style I prefer the land of the free, where equality and justice is more important, but that is just me.
Equality isn't the same as freedom, any law that enforces equality restricts someone's freedom. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#183348 Mar 14, 2013
Texas Senator files bill to legalize civil unions

http://dailytexanonline.com/blogs/the-update/...

Same sex couples would have access to many of the benefits and legal protections afforded to heterosexual married couples if a bill and several resolutions filed in the Texas Legislature gain approval.

The bill, filed by state Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen, would partially repeal the Texas Defense of Marriage Act of 2003, which prevents Texas from recognizing same sex unions.

In a statement, Hinojosa cited a 2012 public opinion poll conducted by UT and The Texas Tribune showing that a majority of Texas voters favored some legal recognition of same-sex couples.

"Texans are now realizing the importance of providing same-gender couples the same protections that married couples receive," Hinojosa said.

The bill would provide same sex couples certain legal protections including property rights, adoption rights and worker compensation benefits.

One of the three constitutional amendments proposed last week by state Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso, state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, or state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, must pass in both the House and the Senate by a two-thirds majority vote and then approved by Texas voters in order for Hinojosaís bill to take effect in 2014.

The proposed constitutional amendment would repeal the 2005 Texas Marriage Amendment to the Texas Constitution, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prohibits recognition of civil unions.

Chuck Smith, executive director of Equality Texas, an organization that lobbies for gay and transgender rights, said in a statement that Hinojosaís legislation is the first step on a path toward recognizing rights for same-sex couples in Texas.

"We believe that every Texas family should be able to take care of those they love," Smith said.

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.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
2014 warmest year: California, world set to bre... 1 hr Mark 1
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) 23 hr Chris 464
good restaurants in Hemet (Jan '11) Thu Chris 112
what keeps hemet from going bankrupt? (Sep '12) Thu ThrudaWoodz 33
Do you approve of Jeff Stone as Supervisor? (Oct '11) Nov 15 bj 11
Do you approve of Paul Cook as State Assembly -... (Oct '11) Nov 15 bj 5
again the blak man Nov 14 all knowing 1

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hemet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hemet

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:43 pm PST