Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201808 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.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#210788 Aug 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
From U.S. law.
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859).“he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principal ends of marriage.” Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888)(quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103.“Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.” Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919).“The great end of matrimony is ... the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father.” Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919); Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975)(“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage....”); Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974)(“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”); Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)(“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.”); Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969)(“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”); Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960)(“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”); Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958)(discussing “one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.”); Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942)(“The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.”); Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940)(stating that “procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony”); Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918)(“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”); Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907)(“[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage ...”); Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906)(“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)(observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race”);
1.) When listing a series of opinions, maybe consider taking the time to list them as bullet points.

2.) So, all of the children born outside of wedlock aren't children? What are they?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#210789 Aug 19, 2013
If you want to claim that;
~ Gay unions are 'natural'.
~ Gay unions are the same as marriage.

1. Why is there then not one similar example of a proportionate presence of gay 'marriage' in even ONE culture from start to finish of the culture's existence like marriage has?
2. Why is there then not one similar example of the acceptance of gay 'marriage' in even ONE culture from the start to finish of the culture's existence like marriage has?
3. Why is there not one geographical location, where gay 'marriage' established a foothold, held and spread like marriage did?
4. There is historical evidence of a brief and rare presence of gay 'marriage' in a few cultures, but they NEVER took root and spread. Why?
5. In fact, there is also historical evidence that even when gay 'marriage' did begin to show up, it was resisted.

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#210790 Aug 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
If you want to claim that;
~ Gay unions are 'natural'.
~ Gay unions are the same as marriage.
1. Why is there then not one similar example of a proportionate presence of gay 'marriage' in even ONE culture from start to finish of the culture's existence like marriage has?
2. Why is there then not one similar example of the acceptance of gay 'marriage' in even ONE culture from the start to finish of the culture's existence like marriage has?
3. Why is there not one geographical location, where gay 'marriage' established a foothold, held and spread like marriage did?
4. There is historical evidence of a brief and rare presence of gay 'marriage' in a few cultures, but they NEVER took root and spread. Why?
5. In fact, there is also historical evidence that even when gay 'marriage' did begin to show up, it was resisted.
And yet there are many many cultures that could say all that for slavery

Just because something was true in the past, doesn't make it a good thing
Anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#210791 Aug 19, 2013
Why politician says gay people should not be allowed to marry
'They don't face each other during sex'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ameri...
julianna mungo

Sonoma, CA

#210792 Aug 19, 2013
suzanne henderson wrote:
<quoted text>
My husband and I are not perfect, only saved by Grace, but my husband and I have never cheated, for there is not any reason to cheat when you have love for one another. Actually, anyone that even says what you said really does not know the Love of God at all. If you knew what God's Love really was, you would really be ashamed to even think such a thing. Not all people in the world have a mind like yours, but you know what? God can forgive you also even with that type of attitude, for he loved you so much that he was willing to have His Son Sacrificed for you and if you had been the only person on earth, he would have died for you. God's Love is so pure and forgiving that you feel free inside and we do not Sin because we think of God when we are tempted and this is Satans work in the world is to try and tempt people, but we do not listen to Satan like Jesus said "Get behind me". You can live this life if you would surrender your life to Christ. Someday you are going to have a crisis in your life like everybody does and when that day comes, will you be able to deny Christ when there will be nothing left but death? This is a question that everybody will have to answer, like myself had to answer, but my husband and I chose life and we have had a better life together with Christ in our lives than we could have ever thought we would have. We tell people that because they do not know that they will be here tomorrow, that "TODAY IS THE DAY OF SALVATION". I hope that you ponder this in your heart.
Bless You! You have captured the very essence of the church of the Sepulchre and the Scriptures. You and We Who Know do not let the shadows overtake you. Bless You. The true believer knows that all others who refrain from complete commitment and who do not bow down to the Lord are indeed the offal in the slaughterhouse of life and they are stench and vile and ghastly and deserving not at all of compassion or mercy for they are cursed because they are not as we are and we are as God has made us, which then means that they who are not as we are as they are made that way by Satan. We cannot tolerate this, He has said unto us; Go Forth and Strike Down All Such Sinners that Ye Shall Know Them. Do unto others before they do unto you, and cleanse the path for the righteous. BLESS YOU.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#210793 Aug 19, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, sure... inflation, presence of lead in water, poor management of financial stress, hoarding, trade deficit, and division of empire paved a way for successful Germanic invasions by German tribes, which eventually led to the fall of Rome. All sorts of pesky issues...
Not just your pet pony....
I am well aware of that, I did not say it was the cause.

My point was I can easily make the case that Christianity was the cause as they can make any other single thing as the cause, which they consistently do

I don’t for a moment think that is actually the case. But it makes as much sense as what they preach ( which is no sense at all )

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#210794 Aug 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
If you want to claim that;
~ Gay unions are 'natural'.
~ Gay unions are the same as marriage.
1. Why is there then not one similar example of a proportionate presence of gay 'marriage' in even ONE culture from start to finish of the culture's existence like marriage has?
2. Why is there then not one similar example of the acceptance of gay 'marriage' in even ONE culture from the start to finish of the culture's existence like marriage has?
3. Why is there not one geographical location, where gay 'marriage' established a foothold, held and spread like marriage did?
4. There is historical evidence of a brief and rare presence of gay 'marriage' in a few cultures, but they NEVER took root and spread. Why?
5. In fact, there is also historical evidence that even when gay 'marriage' did begin to show up, it was resisted.
Because people can be really opinionated horses asses.

NEXT!
Done Now

Monrovia, CA

#210795 Aug 19, 2013
Don't lose andy sleep ove sanhfuih gvnjuegs s7g fdjbs saug 8 sujfbus fhudgh s9877 shufh s873bhusgh shufgh sjiosudf siofrhuis ojfihd s tryig to figure this out.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#210796 Aug 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) When listing a series of opinions, maybe consider taking the time to list them as bullet points.
Understood. Grazie
2.) So, all of the children born outside of wedlock aren't children? What are they?
They'll still children Big Red. The point is marriage is the means by which society regulates in a way the sexual, potentially procreative, union of men and women. Its not a stand alone means for adult happiness.
Done Now

Monrovia, CA

#210798 Aug 19, 2013
Loks like were are getting cvisiurd asiuhfuxhd sjhbud 7ns sufbusd89 snbfugsu bdfndf jusgbud fasbndfugs sifrhg shfbusd I'm sure there will be nop more problems.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#210799 Aug 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Understood. Grazie
<quoted text>
They'll still children Big Red. The point is marriage is the means by which society regulates in a way the sexual, potentially procreative, union of men and women. Its not a stand alone means for adult happiness.
Except that procreation is not a requirement, and there are legal marriages that are not just between men and woman, and there is no regulation of how married couples have sex

Every point is wrong.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#210802 Aug 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am well aware of that, I did not say it was the cause.
My point was I can easily make the case that Christianity was the cause as they can make any other single thing as the cause, which they consistently do
I don’t for a moment think that is actually the case. But it makes as much sense as what they preach ( which is no sense at all )
You know Christianity is not the cause but you can say it is because he blamed it on the wrong cause too.

Priceless.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#210803 Aug 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Because people can be really opinionated horses asses.
NEXT!
"They are not homophobes. They are not scared. They are just a bunch of a**holes." - Jón Gnarr. Mayor of Reykjavic, Iceland

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#210806 Aug 19, 2013
Jesus-loves-You_ wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, procreation is the state interest that gets the state involved in marriages.
From U.S. law.
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859).“he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principal ends of marriage.” Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888)(quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103.“Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.” Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919).“The great end of matrimony is ... the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father.” Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919); Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975)(“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage....”); Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974)(“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”); Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)(“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.”); Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969)(“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”); Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960)(“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”); Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958)(discussing “one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.”); Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942)(“The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.”); Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940)(stating that “procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony”); Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918)(“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”); Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907)(“[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage ...”); Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906)(“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)(observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race”);
Now quote the case where people were refused a marriage license because they lacked either the intent, or ability to have children.

There are millions of such cases in the US, show me the case where one of them was refused a marriage license.
suzanne henderson

El Dorado Hills, CA

#210807 Aug 19, 2013
Jesus-loves-You_ wrote:
<quoted text>Actually once again you are lying.
Are you educated or are you new to this planet?
Here is how it works. Books are written in subject matters and chapters are written to express related ideas.
The book is Leviticus and the chapters are 18 and 20.
Let us look at Leviticus 18. It deals only with sexual sins.
So, if you have a problem with homosexuality being forbidden then you also support incest, bestiality, necrophilia and sex while women are on their periods.
So, the context of homosexuality relates to the laws forbidding incest, bestiality, necrophilia and sex while bleeding.
Think about AIDS and how it relates to blood. It is apparent that if gays followed Leviticus 18, they would be heroes in the gay community.
Thank you Jesus-loves-you for defending God's Word. It is amazing when people say that they are Christian and then they try to remove Scripture. For God's Word is the "SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER". These amazing writings are to show us how to live, how to have God's Love and how to have Salvation through God's Son Jesus so that we can have Eternal Life. I tell people all the time that you cannot deviate God's Holy Word ever. Who are we that can pick and choose what we do not like in Scripture to support our life style? If we start removing Scripture, then there will be nothing left and if everything in Scripture means something else, then we have no Scripture left and then it would be confusion and God said he is NOT the author of confusion. I would warn people that God will not allow you to start taking Scripture out to fit thier lifestyle for they will have to face our Creator someday in the second Resurrection which is the ones who did not ahere to God's Word and did not believe. People that say that they have accepted Christ as their Savior and Lord of their lives, then I would ask them if you Love Christ, OBEY HIS COMMANDMENTS. Some will say that the Word is written in their hearts, that is true, but the Word written in their hearts MUST not go against Christ.

Thank you again for your stand for God Word through His Son Jesus. Praise His Holy Name!!
Done Now

Monrovia, CA

#210808 Aug 19, 2013
Then it was said tha the crazys spouting talk of snakes etc would come out asnifj9 s aihfuishi sojfi738hidufh8sn dfuhgs784ehs hje8yh8shf shr8h8ushf sjf8huuiw3ehnfd sifhdys fnhsihf8hxd snhufhudhf sifhisdofj skjhf s98h3hf sdxjhiufh83y dfhfd 8e4y sifh8e48h fish8e8 xihfi993 fhd e8hf 8idy ei8yrf8di d e8yhf8 sdhjf893e fhnusy8e4 shfis9 e9sdhf then the snakes were banished to the hinder world of pagans.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#210809 Aug 19, 2013
YUK!YUK!YUK!~Whoop!~Whoop! Ah good times.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Nov 12

Sacramento, CA

#210810 Aug 19, 2013
suzanne henderson wrote:
<quoted text>
We may not respond to you anymore because we are not sure what your intent is. We do try, but we feel because all of you seem to have Bibles that you are quoting from, the Holy Spirit is the teacher, so why ask us anyway? That is found in First John 2:27.
I will leave you with something that may help your journey and it has been more than a Blessing to us and that is a book that was a debate in April 1829. The book is "THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY" and the debaters were Alexander Campbell the Christian and Robert Owen, the Athiest. It is well worth reading, but you may have to find it on the internet because the last time I tried to buy one, it was not available anymore. This was probably the best debate on Christianity that has ever been. There was a big crowd of people that came to this debate and when it was over, Alexander Campbell had overwhelmingly got the votes in his favor. They had the crowd stand for Alexander Campbell or Robert Owen. For those who believed Alexander Campbell, all stood up, but 3 and those were in favor of Robert Owen. Mr. Campbell was a genius and my husband has used some of the material from this book in many times in our discussions in our Home Bible Studies.
May you find what you are looking for and May the Lord help you find it.
I don't think an old debate in the 1820's about believing in God vs, not believing has ANYTHING to do with my post. If you can't answer and debate here, why do you respond?
Quit a

Monrovia, CA

#210811 Aug 19, 2013
Frnkie me boy how heck are you today, I hear you took quit a beating last night.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#210812 Aug 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Now quote the case where people were refused a marriage license because they lacked either the intent, or ability to have children.
There are millions of such cases in the US, show me the case where one of them was refused a marriage license.
That's because procreation is not a requirement for marriage dummy. But is is one of the main reasons marriage exists.

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
Can white people call themselves African American? (Sep '12) Thu Facepalmnative 104
FUBU Clothing Company is Racist (Oct '12) May 18 left them in the ... 48
hemet is heaven (Mar '10) May 17 uknowwho 20
Earthquake? Did anyone feel that? May 15 kuntakinte 8
stolen!!! 1983 sportscoach motorhome May 12 sas98029 4
News Theater Complex, Bowling Alley Coming to Menife... (May '14) May 12 Lady Morgana 15
Is San Jacinto Dangerous? (Jun '10) May 8 Real Deal 30
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]