Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201847 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183766 Mar 18, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, that may be the reasons your marriage exists ( 8in which case I feel very very sorry for your wife ),
Actually your marriage exists for the same reason, as does mine. There are two sexes, human reproduction is sexual, and our society, as have many across the globe, throughout time and place, figured this out. As to the feeling sorry part, you response seems to indicate, you feel wives are interchangeable with men. Personally my wife is all woman, but if some like 'em....
but it sure was not the reason for mine. You donít get to define what everyone elseís marriage is about.
The states does that, at least legally. I have every right to advocate for monogamous conjugal marriage as the legal definition, as do you monogamous two person model regardless of gender composition, and polygamists also have the right to advocate for their definition.
I know people who married later in life, I know people that married with no intent of having children, I know people that married without the ability to have children
What a coincidence, so do I. I also know people whose mother and father were not only married, but had sex to create them.
and you think their marriages is less than others are.. you are wrong... dead wrong, and a VAST majority of Americans will agree with me on that.
Actually, Big Denial, I don't, stated just that. Let's go to the audio tape:
Pietro Armando said:
Those who cannot, or choose not, to have children do not degrade thier own, nor the marriages of any other husband and wife. Quite the contrary, such marriages reinforce the conjugal nature of the martial relationship, and what that nature produces, children. Even those husbands and wives who choose not to, nor cannot, have children are still they themselves, the products of a male female union.
The intent or ability to have children is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement to get a marrage license.
Silly rabbit, why the heck would it have to be a requirement? Do you think married couples won't have sex? That there won't be any "oops" babies? As my father used to say, "two go to bed, but three get up". That's not tradition, that's good old fashioned facts of life.
I donít give a darn about tradition,
Not any tradition? Even the tradition that says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife"?
I certainly donít give a darn about what you think is important.
That's because I won't climb the mountain to seek out your wisdom. I'm sure you have enough politicians, and judges doing that already.
I donít have to run every marriage past you for approval, you have no authority.
Nor do you sparky, but thanks for trying.
Marriage is about 2 people making a promise, to become partners in their lives, it is about love, and respect and a commitment to one another.
Is that on the marriage license? Are THOSE pre-requisites? Are they legal requirements? Besides, marriage has always been about "2 people", polygamy is a valid form of marriage world wide, and its practiced in this country, albeit without legal recognition.
Tradition is unnecessary ( people can have a cerymony, or not, as they choose )
Who said anything about a ceremony?
Children are not a requirement ( no law will automatically decree a dissolution of a marriage based on intent or ability to have children, one of the parties has to WANT a divorce, and then any reason works, including eating crackers in bed )
Here's a newsflash for ya! The state doesn't care, from a legal standpoint, about your hallmark card version of marriage. "Love", "respect", "commitment", etc., are neither legally defined, nor a requirement for issuance of a license. If you're going to rant on about procreation is not a legal requiremnt, ya better throw in the all the rest as well.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183767 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm stating a simple fact, dummy.
The courts haven't said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
True, but they have said procreation is the reason marriage either exists, or that the compelling state interest. Here's one example.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183768 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro Armando won't deal with the issues you bring up, and just plays word games, that's why I stopped replying to him.
Awwww....Rosie, yes I have, numerous times. Reread my posts, you'll see.
Bischops Chops

Sonoma, CA

#183769 Mar 18, 2013
Marriage vows should be a matter of church approval while states and their subsidiary l'il governments should issue licenses recognizing contracts of union beyween signatory parties. Make kids, make noise, make a mess, make bliss or whoopee...do what you may with what you got permission to do it with and dont pizz off the neighbors or make them move.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183770 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's obvious BS. Why even bother?
You don't bother because like everything else you post it lacks any basis in reality.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183771 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm stating a simple fact, dummy.
The courts haven't said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
You have serious issues with critical thinking don't you?

I guess everything has to be in picture form for you to comprehend it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183772 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter.
The Supreme Court made the decision.
<quoted text>
Loving v VA was about marriage, not slavery. You really should educate yourself, and not just copy/paste.
LOL @ you!
You're an idiot. Your response doesn't even slightly resemble a logical retort to my post.

Do need help functioning?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183773 Mar 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but they have said procreation is the reason marriage either exists, or that the compelling state interest. Here's one example.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.
You are wasting your time on Rose, unless like me you are simply entertaining yourself at her expense conversing with her is simply an exercise in futility.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183774 Mar 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
First, your argument isn't with me, take it up with MSNBC.
Second, everyone knows you have no argument when you resurrect Hitler and make ridiculous assertions about what I believe (slander).
Third, any true believer knows that love and truth are inseparable in the Christian faith. Again, if you were a professional social worker, you would understand the impact of denial.
Fourth, leave marriage and children alone. Imposing an imposter relationship on marriage will not fix your unhappiness.
Smile.
Oh... So all of a sudden your vast knowledge of epigenetics comes from MSNBC? Good to know that you've really looked into this matter to a depth that you can knowledgeably discuss it.

But you're not interested in discussing it with any depth of knowledge, you just want to beat people over the head with something you heard about in passing.

Why would any of us expect any difference from you.

I compare you to Hitler because you both advocate the same thing. You both believe that purity of the human race is in part based on the elimination of homosexuals. Is this not true? If I'm mistaken, please "straighten" me out.(wink)

And we will not stop our pursuit of the rights and protections of legal marriage. We are within our rights as American citizens to pursue them.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183775 Mar 18, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
You have serious issues with critical thinking don't you?
I guess everything has to be in picture form for you to comprehend it.
You make a lame attack because I'm right, and you don't have the 'nads to admit it.
The courts have never said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
And speaking of critical thinking, since you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry, the fact gay couples can't reproduce is a non issue when it comes to marriage.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183776 Mar 18, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot. Your response doesn't even slightly resemble a logical retort to my post.
Do need help functioning?
I was talking about the 14th Amendment and Loving v Va, and you replied with a bunch of stuff about slavery...
And you say I'm an idiot! LOL!
Thanks for the smile.:)
VacuLocked

La Puente, CA

#183777 Mar 18, 2013
Nutters are running around looking for GOP, Republican and Tea Party member's to shorten their out look on life.
The Flying Eagle

Modesto, CA

#183778 Mar 18, 2013
If you want to wake up with a sore butt then that's your problem, but don't make it mine!

It's ok to be gay in hell!
Shazzammed

La Puente, CA

#183779 Mar 18, 2013
DE-Nutters are running around looking for GOP, Republican and Tea Party member's to shorten their outlook on life.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183780 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You make a lame attack because I'm right, and you don't have the 'nads to admit it.
The courts have never said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
And speaking of critical thinking, since you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry, the fact gay couples can't reproduce is a non issue when it comes to marriage.
We have tried to explain to your brain cell that "required" is not the same as "central purpose" or "compelling state interest."

You really should get your GED before you attempt to play lawyer.

Oh, and thank you for the laugh, crying about lame attacks when you feel the need to change my name every time you post to me. Who is the child?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183781 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about the 14th Amendment and Loving v Va, and you replied with a bunch of stuff about slavery...
And you say I'm an idiot! LOL!
Thanks for the smile.:)
Yes, because you clinging to Loving v Virginia was an attempt to toss the race card into play in regards to the founders.

I should have known that you wouldn't be able to comprehend the post.

If you want people to stop calling you an idiot, I suggest you stop acting like one.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#183782 Mar 18, 2013
Friend of Bill wrote:
<quoted text>Did you know the average gay male consumes 22.68 lbs of fecal matter on an annual basis, kinda sick if you ask me?!?!
If that was true you'd have been consumed long ago.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183783 Mar 18, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
We have tried to explain to your brain cell that "required" is not the same as "central purpose" or "compelling state interest."
So what? It's not the same as a lot of other things. I just said it wasn't required, and it's not.
akaidiot wrote:
You really should get your GED before you attempt to play lawyer.
I pass gas better educated than you, and better smelling.
akaidiot wrote:
Oh, and thank you for the laugh, crying about lame attacks when you feel the need to change my name every time you post to me. Who is the child?
I wouldn't insult children by calling you one.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183784 Mar 18, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, because you clinging to Loving v Virginia was an attempt to toss the race card into play in regards to the founders.
Stupid, why don't you just admit you fked up?
I was talking about Loving v VA and the 14th Amendment, and marriage. You started to copy/paste stuff about slavery. It was funny.
akaidiot wrote:
I should have known that you wouldn't be able to comprehend the post.
If you want people to stop calling you an idiot, I suggest you stop acting like one.
You are an idiot. And if you want people to believe you are in favor of gay marriage, I suggest you stop making lame personal attacks at everyone in favor of it while picking out the pubes of those against it from between your teeth.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183785 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? It's not the same as a lot of other things. I just said it wasn't required, and it's not.
<quoted text>
I pass gas better educated than you, and better smelling.
<quoted text>
I wouldn't insult children by calling you one.
You really are stuck on stupid aren't you?

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
News A week before trial, former USU student pleads ... Feb 4 OlARRY 1
News Arrest Made in Moreno Valley Murder Feb 2 Nosafeplace 6
FUBU Clothing Company is Racist (Oct '12) Jan 31 Toothin 56
News Report: Robberies, Assaults Drive Riverside Cou... Jan 30 Law abiding citizen 1
News HEMET: Church seeks to build skate park (Jan '11) Jan 29 Rxjosh Granada Hills 15
Review: Hemet Coin & Jewelry (Mar '09) Jan 25 Lyle 10
Menifee- will it take a turn for the worst? (Aug '09) Jan 24 Debbie 87
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages