Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,958

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

#183408 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Grazie
<quoted text>
That is true. To that can also be added love, sex, and cohabitation. None of these are REQUIRED.
<quoted text>
The legal concept of "presumption of paternity" deals with what as it related to marriage?
<quoted text>
SSCs are seeking to have their relationship designated marriage. As individuals they can marry, as any other man or woman can, in any state.
<quoted text>
Love has no bearing, not a requirement. Sex has no bearing, unless its between blood relatives, hmmmm....that could result in procreation....no wait there's no link.Cohabitation has no bearing, not a requirement.
NOT have them designated, they already are, there are 18,000 legal same sex marriages in California right now, there are over 100,000 same sex marriages nationwide.

You are trying to stop other same sex couples from the same legal right that other same sex couples already have.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183409 Mar 15, 2013
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/...

But in his August 8 ruling Judge Alan C. Kay, a Reagan appointee, found that Hawaii’s legislature had a legitimate interest in legislating on behalf of traditional marriage.“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” wrote Kay in his decision, which ran to 117 pages.“… It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.” He added that “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii.... Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”&#8232;

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183410 Mar 15, 2013
http://townhall.com/news/religion/2012/11/30/...

But Jones went further in his ruling, saying Nevada had a legitimate state interest in defining marriage as it did.

"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.

It is "conceivable," he wrote, that if gay marriage is legalized, "a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently ... because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of- wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences."

Jones added, "Because the family is the basic societal unit, the State could have validly reasoned that the consequences of altering the traditional definition of civil marriage could be severe."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183411 Mar 15, 2013
"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote."The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.

"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183412 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/ culture/family/item/12416-fede ral-judge-upholds-traditional- marriage-in-hawaii
But in his August 8 ruling Judge Alan C. Kay, a Reagan appointee, found that Hawaii’s legislature had a legitimate interest in legislating on behalf of traditional marriage.“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” wrote Kay in his decision, which ran to 117 pages.“… It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.” He added that “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii.... Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”&#8232;
In history Christians were murdered for fun and entertainment,

In history black people here were slaves

For a majority of our history women were denied the vote

Just because something was true a long time ago, doesn’t mean it should still be that way.

There is no link between the legal right to marry and procreation, I don’t care of you say it or some politician says it, it is still dead wrong.

You cannot force people to have children, you cannot deny people the right to marry based on if they can have children, the law does not automatically break apart any marriages based upon if they had children or not.

We have been over this already, it already failed in court and you have already failed here. Procreation is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement to get or be married.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183413 Mar 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote."The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.
"The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women," Jones wrote.
No one is saying you cannot have kids if you want to, but I am not about to let you force people to have children in order to be married, or to get married.

We will not tolerate your desire to be a tyrant
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#183414 Mar 15, 2013
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?
Ummm, Actually, yes, that is exactly what they think, and due to infiltration of the seats of power, they are making it happen...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#183415 Mar 15, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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 don’t 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 don’t 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.
But, D, we are not forcing our views upon you, we are telling you that your ideas do not fit the mold. Your side is forcing its views upon the rest of us, and forcing us, the majority of taxpayers, to witness the diversion of our majority of funds, to go toward supporting an already stipulated minority.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183416 Mar 15, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
In history Christians were murdered for fun and entertainment,
In history black people here were slaves
For a majority of our history women were denied the vote
Just because something was true a long time ago, doesn’t mean it should still be that way.
There is no link between the legal right to marry and procreation, I don’t care of you say it or some politician says it, it is still dead wrong.
You cannot force people to have children, you cannot deny people the right to marry based on if they can have children, the law does not automatically break apart any marriages based upon if they had children or not.
We have been over this already, it already failed in court and you have already failed here. Procreation is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement to get or be married.
Hellooooooooo McFly....those are two courts linking marriage and procreation.....I thought the all powerful Wizard of Big D said it was a dead horse in the courts. Oh nooooo.....didn't those judges get the memo? Perhaps they were too tired to climb up the mountain to seek your wisdom, as you sit on your lofty perch awaiting all who seek your guidance.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#183417 Mar 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
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...(snip
Whatever, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
No amount of babble changes that fact.
Do you consider yourself human?
If so, why?
:)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#183418 Mar 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The number of childless couples is most often NOT a 'choice'. Historically 96% of couples have children. The occasion of childlessness has been so rare in marriage, and the likelihood of children so prevalent, governments have found no need to 'require' children. In fact, the idea of such a requirement is silly.
In the case of homosexual couples, procreation in their relationship is zero (0).[QUOTE]

So what? You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
No amount of twisting and turning will change that fact.

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]
This may be a hard question for you, but if marriage should require children, shouldn't it also require sex?
Smirk.
This may be a hard question for you, but do you consider yourself human? If so, why? I looked it up, and humans have 46 chromosomes. How many do you have?
:)
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183419 Mar 15, 2013
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.
I doubt if you posted any facts. All you post is opinion. And your 'opinions' are not based on facts.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183420 Mar 15, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, D, we are not forcing our views upon you, we are telling you that your ideas do not fit the mold. Your side is forcing its views upon the rest of us, and forcing us, the majority of taxpayers, to witness the diversion of our majority of funds, to go toward supporting an already stipulated minority.
Oh puh-leez. Do you always just make shit up and expect people to believe it?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#183421 Mar 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I never said "gays are not good enough to have a fully legal marriage like there is now in 10 states", those are the words of the poster quoted above, not mine. I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.
But then you argue against gay marriage, and that is saying there is something wrong with homosexuals and homosexuality.
Brian_G wrote:
The question isn't about the individual, it has nothing to do with individual goodness. In every state, gays can marry under the same laws as everyone else, there is no orientation test for a marriage license. Gays do marry in every state, I believe most of them want their children raised with a mother and father. Many gays support keeping marriage one man and one woman.
Nobody is talking about getting rid of marriage between a man and a woman, idiot.
Brian_G wrote:
My argument was about wasteful government spending, intrusive regulation and higher taxes; same sex marriage is bad because it would bring more of the above.
That makes no sense, dummy. You even said gay people can marry now. Intrusive regulation? What could be more intrusive than what the government does now? Basing your rights on your genitalia.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#183422 Mar 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Has anyone found a full text of Senator Marco Rubio's speech at CPAC?
Learn how to use a search engine, you dumb b!tch.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#183425 Mar 15, 2013
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.
You are using a typical con dumb ploy.
It's not the fact that your views are "different" than mine that makes you hate hateful bigot. The fact you want to deny people basic, equal human rights makes you a bigot.
Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Beacon, NY

#183427 Mar 15, 2013
Dont think so wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as you don't force your ideas on gay marriage on my beliefs of traditional marriage and those who see marriage as historical & traditional form of union between a man and woman.
No one is forcing tyranny on you, but you are forcing others to change their views to fit yours. If all it is to you is a piece of paper, why not go to these other cultures and get married, why seek to do it with in the government ?
Because its not about wanting to prove your love legally it's about insurance and other types of benefits.
This is the land of the free, you are free to get married in any form you want, but you cannot change the governments views or the majority of the peoples views and we are free to vote that the traditional and historic view of marriage stay the way it is without you forcing your views on us.
That's why your view of marriage was voted out. Yet you want to bypass the will of the people and use liberal gay judges with bias to change the vote.
Now that is tyranny, the few forcing the majority to conform to their views and way of thinking, forcing their version of political correctness. You think if you yell loud enough you can throw out the votes of the majority!
The will of the majority? 3 states,Washington,Maryland and Maine! But the bottom line and the fact remains that a majority cannot vote away the rights of any minority,especially in the case of California where gays had the right to marry(over 18,000)and it was then taken away unjustly and thus,Prop 8 was ruled Unconstitutional not once but twice! And come this June the Supreme court will make marriage equality the law of the land and they will also strike down DOMA as Unconstitutional! I know lets take a popular vote and vote away a couple of your rights,I suppose you think that just too? NO,you'd be on here protesting that it is Unconstitutional to do,just like the gays are! Oh and don't forget,gays are tax paying citizens supplementing your marriage rights while at the same time being denied those very same rights that you enjoy! That's just plain wrong and when DOMA falls will be rectified! Glad I could help!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#183429 Mar 15, 2013
Wring is in the air wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is an institution that developed to bring straight couples together so they can then be intimate and bear offspring not out of wedlock. With partners who make a lifelong commitment to them and their potential offspring. Having young girls going around making babies without a male partner for financial and moral support is chaos. Just look at the inner ditties where up to 70% of the children born with in the minority communities are born out of wedlock, then end up on government support. Marriage did not come out of existence for same sex people to get together for life. There would be no need for this commitment.
Zzzz...
When you get to the topic of gay marriage, let us know.
Wring is in the air wrote:
And they gay movement to have marriage arouse so that their partners could be claimed on their medical insurance and such. It had nothing to do with love but a need to be able to get medical treatments and benefits.
If that was all they wanted, they could just marry a friend of the opposite sex...
Duh.
Wring is in the air wrote:
The fact is gay partnership is not the same as straight partnership. Couple get married yes because they are in love, but straight couples are getting basically a certificate to bear children without being labeled illegitimate.
Many straight couples marry who have neither the desire nor ability to spawn. This is a non issue when it comes to allowing people to marry.
Wring is in the air wrote:
There is no need for such a certificate or licensee for gay couples and there never will be. Straight couple don't want to be accused of living together in sin,
LOL! And here I was, thinking were were living in the 21st Century. My bad.
Wring is in the air wrote:
meaning having sex without the consent of parents or their church, in case the woman was to get pregnant then have an illegitimate child out of wedlock.
LOL! Come on. Hey, father, can I bang my man?
Wring is in the air wrote:
A gay couple can never bear children of their partners DNA. They may bear illegitimate children, but a marriage license with their gay partner will never fix that status married or not. Fact is that a child will be the biological child of a person they did not marry!
Even adoption by a second husband of a straight couple will not make a child legitimate if that child's mother was not married to the biological father.
Gays can adopt, and they can marry, but all that gets them is a piece of paper, it does not help their child to establish legitimacy only the biological parents marriage before they were conceived can do that. This is why marriage ceremonies and traditions came to be. It has nothing to do with gays and their wanting legal avenues to benefits given to married straight couples. It's the insurance policies they need to change not the marriage institution.
Poe's Law...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183431 Mar 15, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, D, we are not forcing our views upon you, we are telling you that your ideas do not fit the mold. Your side is forcing its views upon the rest of us, and forcing us, the majority of taxpayers, to witness the diversion of our majority of funds, to go toward supporting an already stipulated minority.
Yes you are, you are working to force Same Sex couples to not be married even though over 100,000 other same sex couples in this country already are married.

No one is trying for force anything on you, why are you denying them?

What if it was you, what if this was coalition to deny some right of yours? That others like you have?
Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Beacon, NY

#183432 Mar 15, 2013
Dont think so wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never seen the government step in and deny any gay couple from getting married in and church or venue of their choice, by any one they choose, in any faith they choose. Their human right to get married are NOT being denied. They are just NOT LEGALLY recognized in the traditional form of marriage between a man and a woman, as is also the same view of the majority of Americans. Trying to beat others over their heads with your beliefs will not make it true, and trying to devalue the votes and beliefs of others because you don't like it is not equality, you are then stepping on my rights to vote and make that vote count! That is tyranny of the few to overthrow the rights of the many! Standing up for what is the value of society at this point in time is not bigotry!
Well then,I guess you haven't seen the all the latest national polls which are in fact now in favor of marriage equality by 52%! And how about reading the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and get back to us! You simply represent the tyranny of the majority and think that your personal beliefs should be able to circumvent the rights afforded us all in the Constitution and Bill of rights!

The Constitutional reasons why Prop 8 and other bans on marriage equality are in fact Unconstitutional!

www.afer.org/our-work/our-arguments

The summery of the Iowa Supreme court decision overturning the ban in that state and why the ban was in fact Unconstitutional!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D... (read the section entitled"Equal protection clause"

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
ugly women with ugly tattoos!!!!! (Oct '12) 41 min Bad teachers 90
Why is hemet racist ?!? 4 hr Chris 26
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 6 hr Blazing saddles 7,954
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 11 hr brewed 5,070
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 20 hr subscibe 15,995
is there a hobby shop in town? (Aug '11) Tue Ilike 8
kim Tue Hmt street drivers 5
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
Hemet Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Hemet Jobs

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••