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
160,081 - 160,100 of 200,349 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183375
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Marriage provides a marital bed, the appropriate social setting for sex. Then, marriage provides a home for the offspring of those sexual relations with the child's mother and father.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183376
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not about procreation, never was... this is a dead argument.
Uhhhhhh....huh....actually at its core is sex, AND procreation. The first lead to the second. "Consumation", "marital relations", "be getting children", "presumption of paternity", all words that speak to the sexual union of husband and wife, and/or what that union produces, children. Do you honestly think that now that the is legal SSM in a few states, that a few centuries of American marital jurisprudence, not to mention the cultural, historic, and religious concept of marriage as a union of husband and wife is invalidated, or erased from the public an historic record?
People are free to marry regardless of if they have the ability or even the desire to have children, that has always been true, not a requirement, never ever was.
Why in the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, would procreation have to be required in order to prove that marriage and procreation are linked? How about this, ".....first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Big D in the baby carriage..." BTW, what form of birth control do SSCs use?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183378
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
I support civil unions, that is the perfect compromise to keep marriage male/female. If the Constituion prohibits calling same sex unions "civil unions", why not call it domestic partnerships and leave out the rights that require taxpayers provide benefits for same sex partners?
Same sex marriage means more wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries. If you want to cut spending and keep government from intruding into marriage, keep marriage as is, one man and one woman.
You don't have two brain cells to rub together, do you?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183380
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh....huh....actually at its core is sex, AND procreation. The first lead to the second. "Consumation", "marital relations", "be getting children", "presumption of paternity", all words that speak to the sexual union of husband and wife, and/or what that union produces, children. Do you honestly think that now that the is legal SSM in a few states, that a few centuries of American marital jurisprudence, not to mention the cultural, historic, and religious concept of marriage as a union of husband and wife is invalidated, or erased from the public an historic record?
<quoted text>
Why in the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, would procreation have to be required in order to prove that marriage and procreation are linked? How about this, ".....first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Big D in the baby carriage..." BTW, what form of birth control do SSCs use?
Please show me the law, in any state, where a couple is denied the right to marry because they do not intend to have children, or the law where the state ( not either party in the marriage ) decides to invalidate their marriage because they didnít have any children.

I can give you a tip.... no such law exists

Marriage is about a commitment to one another, a contract, a promise to one another. Procreation is not a requirement in this or any country that I am aware of.

If you can find a country that demands that, I suggest you move there.

Procreation is a dead issue, it already failed in court, and you certainly wonít get anywhere with that lame argument here.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183381
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Another conservative republican is shown the light...( by his own son )

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portma...

It is a shame that it has to happen that way, I donít happen to be gay nor any of my children, but I can see right from wrong without that... I wish they could come to the right and decent side of this issue without it having to be from a family member.
MurkieReasearch

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183382
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Poor OLD, CPAC - shouldn't they get offtheir highhorses?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183383
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is not about procreation, never was... this is a dead argument. People are free to marry regardless of if they have the ability or even the desire to have children, that has always been true, not a requirement, never ever was.
That lame argument has already failed in court
That is a common form of reasoning most known as denial, followed by a lie. None of which addresses the facts I posted.

Smirk.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183384
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a common form of reasoning most known as denial, followed by a lie. None of which addresses the facts I posted.
Smirk.
No You are in denial

Or... show me the law in any state ( or any country for that matter ) that will deny a couple the right to marry if they do not intend to have children, and.. will against their will, dissolve their marriage if they do not have children.

Until you show me that law you are in denial

Procreation was never... EVERÖ.. a requirement for a marriage, not in this country, nor any other that I am aware of.

The lame procreation argument is a dead issue, already soundly defeated in court here in the US

I donít care about your or anyone elseís religion, or your or anyone elseís deities, I donít care about your or anyone elseís traditions, we are Americans, we are free of the tynary of others, all equal in the eyes of the law.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183385
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Please show me the law, in any state, where a couple is denied the right to marry because they do not intend to have children, or the law where the state ( not either party in the marriage ) decides to invalidate their marriage because they didnít have any children.
Please explain how that response logically addresses my post?

Uhhhhhh....huh....actually at its core is sex, AND procreation. The first lead to the second. "Consumation", "marital relations", "be getting children", "presumption of paternity", all words that speak to the sexual union of husband and wife, and/or what that union produces, children. Do you honestly think that now that the is legal SSM in a few states, that a few centuries of American marital jurisprudence, not to mention the cultural, historic, and religious concept of marriage as a union of husband and wife is invalidated, or erased from the public an historic record?

I made no claim regarding the right to marry in that post.
I can give you a tip.... no such law exists
Please link any state body of case law that deals with a same sex marriage, male or female, and recognized, by
law, reasons for same sex divorce, such as failure to consummate the marriage when party has pledged to do so.
Marriage is about a commitment to one another, a contract, a promise to one another. Procreation is not a requirement in this or any country that I am aware of.
Please list any and all countries, where procreation is not part of that country' s collective historic, legal, cultural, and/or religious concept of marriage.
If you can find a country that demands that, I suggest you move there.
Procreation is a dead issue, it already failed in court, and you certainly wonít get anywhere with that lame argument here.
If YOU can find one, I suggest YOU move there. BTW, were your mother and father married?
Jeff

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183386
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation.... Just because you want freedom, equality, and justice, does not mean you should not respect my right to deny you freedom equality and justice.
What a pile of crap
Why is it okay for Liberals to force their views on everyone, and the second someone chooses to believe something different they go on the attack calling the guy a bigot and saying he is full of hate?

Because someone does not believe your view of the world, does not make them full of crap. Liberals are for freedom and equality as long as you believe in what they believe.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183387
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it okay for Liberals to force their views on everyone, and the second someone chooses to believe something different they go on the attack calling the guy a bigot and saying he is full of hate?
Because someone does not believe your view of the world, does not make them full of crap. Liberals are for freedom and equality as long as you believe in what they believe.
We are not trying to force anyone, you are NOT required to be involved in a same sex marriage.

Why are you trying to force others not too is the question. I donít care if you believe in my view of the world or not, I am not trying to force you to change anything, I am trying to get you to stop forcing others to your view

You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe, as long as you donít try to force that belief upon someone else.

I will return the favor, I will make sure no other religion forces its views upon you or your children either.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183388
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Lets see

You said

"Please link any state body of case law that deals with a same sex marriage, male or female, and recognized, by
law, reasons for same sex divorce, such as failure to consummate the marriage when party has pledged to do so."

One party of a marriage can sue for divorce if they choose to for that or any reason or no reason at all, thank you for making my case. Eating crackers in bed ( which you can file for divorce for ) has the exact same bearing as procreation.

You said

"Please list any and all countries, where procreation is not part of that country' s collective historic, legal, cultural, and/or religious concept of marriage."

I donít care about historic, or cultural or religious concepts, you are free to adhere to those or not in the land of the free as you choose but you are not going to force anyone else to adhere to them, legal however there are now 17 nations ( and growing swiftly ) that now recognize same sex marriage, and No country that will dissolve a marriage against a couples wishes if they choose not to have children.

The procreation argument is dead... already defeated in US courts.

You are beating a very dead horse.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183389
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

I should also point out that no nation on earth will deny a couple the right to marry even if it can be proved that one or both once ate crackers in bed.

Same with the intent or ability to have children
OgdenIdiots

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183390
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Charges of racism on the West Covina City Council

On February 5, 2013 the West Covina City Council appointed a new councilman to replace Mike Touhey, who resigned to be on the local water board. The council selected Andrew McIntyre to fill the council position by a 3-1 vote.
Herfert, Sanderson and Sotello voted for McIntyre and Sykes opposed the selection.

Herfert stated that Sykes opposed McIntyre because he is white.(Sykes is an African American). It should be noted that when Rob Sotello was appointed by the council in April 2012 that Sykes nominated two white West Covina citizens for council. I definitely feel that Sykes is not opposed to McIntyre because he is white.

Councilman Herfert did not attend the Feb. 19 council meeting because he stated he was sick. Also, he did not attend the March 5 meeting because he was on vacation. Many citizens who spoke at both meetings thought Herfert's comment about Sykes was very racist.
The citizens thought that Herfert should apologize to Sykes.

Herfert currently has not offered a written apology. Many feel that Herfert is trying to evade this controversial racial issue.

I definitely believe that Herfert at the next council meeting on March 19, 2013 should apologize to Sykes and the West Covina citizens for his racist remark.
bad

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183391
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Gays can't survive without straight leople otherwise where's y'all kids gonna come from lmao
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183392
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

5

bad wrote:
Gays can't survive without straight leople otherwise where's y'all kids gonna come from lmao
I am a straight person, married, and I am not in any way offended or threatened by same sex couples marrying. We could do with fewer children anyway, the world is populated enough.

Donít worry, most people are straight, there will be enough children, probably too many

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183393
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

bad wrote:
Gays can't survive without straight leople otherwise where's y'all kids gonna come from lmao
Seems like most gay people survive just fine. Most people are beyond that, this topic is gay marriage.
bad

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183394
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Seems like most gay people survive just fine. Most people are beyond that, this topic is gay marriage.
vive the confused fuckups a few yrs and cut of the kid supply and let them die out

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183395
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.
I agree with your notion that many marriages--most marriages--result in offspring.

However, in this country, in no jurisdiction, is offspring a REQUIREMENT of marriage.

Our laws DO NOT tie children to marriage.

So you have to separate the two issues. On the one hand you have reproduction and family. On the other hand you have marriage.

Same-gender couples are seeking marriage so that they can have the protections and rights afforded to other married couples.

There is no legal reason for denying these benefits.

The only reasons that people can come up with to deny same-gender marriage are:

--Religious or moral issues, which DO NOT have a bearing on this case.

--Children... And since we have established that children IS NOT a requirement for marriage, it also has no bearing in these cases.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183396
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your notion that many marriages--most marriages--result in offspring.
However, in this country, in no jurisdiction, is offspring a REQUIREMENT of marriage.
Our laws DO NOT tie children to marriage.
So you have to separate the two issues. On the one hand you have reproduction and family. On the other hand you have marriage.
Same-gender couples are seeking marriage so that they can have the protections and rights afforded to other married couples.
There is no legal reason for denying these benefits.
The only reasons that people can come up with to deny same-gender marriage are:
--Religious or moral issues, which DO NOT have a bearing on this case.
--Children... And since we have established that children IS NOT a requirement for marriage, it also has no bearing in these cases.
Exactly right

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.

22 Users are viewing the Hemet Forum right now

Search the Hemet Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 5 hr Eainca 4,887
Now what? 14 hr apt crime 8
hemet police not doing their job 14 hr hpd great 25
is there a hobby shop in town? (Aug '11) 18 hr comic store somewhere 6
Front Yard Junk 18 hr cactus 19
western dental hiring 18 hr teeth cleaning 3
crime here out of control (Aug '09) 18 hr need more police 57
•••
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
•••

Hemet Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••