Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,191

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204488 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>KMARE
Prove it. Re-post a post where Kimare said procreation is a REQUIREMENT for marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204489 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
In this day and age that is of course a choice. I do agree however that there should be no procreation requirement, as there are millions of happily married couples that either do not have the ability, or the desire to have children. And we count no less of their marriages than anyone else’s.
Not to worry, there is no procreation requirement. Never was.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204490 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said procreation is a requirement for marriage. You insist someone did. Prove it.
I only remind people that it is not a requirement whenever they bring up the ability to have children as any kind of reason to not allow same sex marriage.

Don’t worry, they don’t mention procreation with respect to being able to marry, and neither will I.

When you used it, I reminded you, if you don’t like being reminded, try not forgetting that it is not now nor ever has been a requirement.

I don’t take orders from you and will say what I like, when I like :)
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204491 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>KMARE
You are assuming he reads any posts but his own, he responds to mine without comprehending even a tiny portion of what I said.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204492 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. Re-post a post where Kimare said procreation is a REQUIREMENT for marriage.
we don’t need to, we already know, and it is more fun to make fun that you are as ignorant as you are.:)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204493 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You just implied that was the case, I am happy to correct you.
Procreation has no place in a discussion about the legal right to marry
No, the whole reason for this argument is to correct you. No one said procreation is a requirement for marriage.

Yet you insist someone did. I have said (and I stand by it) that procreation is closely related to marriage and why argue otherwise? Any freshman sociology student knows that. And it's one of the reasons the government gives perks to marriage. Why argue otherwise? What is the goal of your spin? Of course procreation is associated with marriage. Of course it's never been a REQUIREMENT.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204494 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming he reads any posts but his own, he responds to mine without comprehending even a tiny portion of what I said.
You said that someone said procreation is a requirement of marriage. You lie. No one said that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204495 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
we don’t need to, we already know, and it is more fun to make fun that you are as ignorant as you are.:)
I'd love to see you tell a judge that someday. "Your honor, I don't need to prove it, we already know and it is more fun to make fun that you are ignorant..."

Then you'd come flying out the courtroom door and land on your bony ass in the street!
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204496 Jul 24, 2013
http://thomists.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/gett...

“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”– Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 541

“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”– Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”– Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra 316 U.S. At p. 541 and citing Maynard v Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190)

“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33

“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204497 Jul 24, 2013
Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.

“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.

“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.

“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.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336

“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628

“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254

“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)

“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
Pietro Armando

Somerville, MA

#204498 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
In this day and age that is of course a choice. I do agree however that there should be no procreation requirement,
There isn't, for the umpteenth time, nor is there a requirement to have sex.
as there are millions of happily married couples that either do not have the ability, or the desire to have children. And we count no less of their marriages than anyone else’s.
Of course we don't, its all about husband and wife, everything stems from that. A husband and wife, who choose not to have children, or cannot have children, are just a valuable to society as those husbands and wives that do. They both reinforce the understanding of marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204499 Jul 24, 2013
I don't know why anyone would take the position that marriage is not associated with procreation unless they were trying to spin something.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204500 Jul 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

Of course we don't, its all about husband and wife, everything stems from that. A husband and wife, who choose not to have children, or cannot have children, are just a valuable to society as those husbands and wives that do. They both reinforce the understanding of marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife.
You need to catch up, it is also between same sex couples, legally recognized on the state and federal level, as legal a marriage as yours or mine.

Procreation is not a requirement
Sexual behavior is not a requirement
Type of sex acts are not specified
etc
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204501 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I don't know why anyone would take the position that marriage is not associated with procreation unless they were trying to spin something.
I don’t know why someone would mention procreation as having anything to do with being able to marry, it isn’t now, and never has been, at least not in this country.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204502 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd love to see you tell a judge that someday. "Your honor, I don't need to prove it, we already know and it is more fun to make fun that you are ignorant..."
Then you'd come flying out the courtroom door and land on your bony ass in the street!
I don’t think of you as any kind of judge, you are about the last person I would have judge anything.

The people that did bring the other side up in front of a judge, ended up with the judges laughing at the argument.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204503 Jul 24, 2013
Once you hate someone, everything they do is offensive. Like Big D is thinking "Look at that son-of-a-b!tch Frankie eating those crackers like he owns the place."
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204504 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t know why someone would mention procreation as having anything to do with being able to marry, it isn’t now, and never has been, at least not in this country.
Because it's one of the main reasons marriage was invented. It's foolish to argue otherwise.

And it's dishonest to say someone said something they didn't.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204505 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t think of you as any kind of judge, you are about the last person I would have judge anything.
The people that did bring the other side up in front of a judge, ended up with the judges laughing at the argument.
They didn't laugh at the argument. They laughed at a joke about older people having kids. If the argument was laughable, it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204506 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's one of the main reasons marriage was invented. It's foolish to argue otherwise.
And it's dishonest to say someone said something they didn't.
Well I have some interesting information for you that you are obviously ignorant of.

There are millions of people married who either cannot, or choose not to have children. Our government has not restricted marriage only to people who can or intend to have children. That isn’t an opinion, that is a fact.

There has never been a law restricting people from marrying because of their ability or intent to have children or not.

It never has, and we are not about to vote in a new law so you can specifically exclude these people.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204507 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Once you hate someone, everything they do is offensive. Like Big D is thinking "Look at that son-of-a-b!tch Frankie eating those crackers like he owns the place."
You are like a little puppet on strings.. Dance Frankie.. Dance!( chuckle )

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.

Laton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Growing Alfalfa Under Subsurface Drip Irrigation Thu Venture Capitalist 4
Updates: Man arrested in Hanford murder (Nov '08) Oct 21 guero from the H 11
Huron Rally to Save Police Department (Mar '10) Oct 7 Vato 22
Officer involved shooting in Dinuba (Sep '10) Oct 6 Devon the dummy 3
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep '14 Shelly 12
Dennis W (Veeser) from Krakow Wi. Sep '14 Mia 1
Fed jury indicts former Riverdale High band dir... Sep '14 Who 1
Laton Dating
Find my Match

Laton Jobs

Laton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Laton News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Laton

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]